How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 Philosophy 101
 Atlas Shrugged--the movie?   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  ]
 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Atlas Shrugged--the movie?

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


25 posted 06-02-2007 04:59 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

"Ergo....man's responsibility is to himself alone."

John, you have reached the crux of the issue which made her so controversial. She made many such statements which invited criticism.  One needs to understand what she meant by such statements. She believed that man's responsibility to himself was to live his life on the highest moral plane possible, making as much of himself as possible without infringing on the rights of others to do the same. She believed in selfishness but not the garbled  definition many use. As far as responsibility, let's take the following example: You get married and have two children. By doing so you have accepted the moral responsibility of raising a family. So, when you do things toward achieving that goal, you are doing it for YOURSELF. You are doing it because you are living up to the responsibilities you have chosen. Yes, of course, the family benefits, but you are simply living up to the responsibilities you have set for yourself as a moral human being. (The fact that you love them is a wonderful addition!)

Selfishness is another snippet that, when taken out of context, can become distorted.  Selfishness is to many a blasphemous word simply because they don't know what it means so they throw it around  as a biting insult and miss the entire meaning....too bad.

...and, no, there is no higher morality than that which one owes to oneself....my personal opinion, of course.


btw, we had an excellent thread on this not so long ago..
http://piptalk.com/pip/Forum15/HTML/001529.html#1
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


26 posted 06-02-2007 07:17 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


Mile,

My problem is that I saw no overriding moral
imperative that would separate her from Oscar Wilde
whose attitude would have been if the family disappoints
or simply bores the superior man dump them.


John


.
Drauntz
Member Elite
since 03-16-2007
Posts 2907
Los Angeles California


27 posted 06-02-2007 08:33 PM       View Profile for Drauntz   Email Drauntz   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Drauntz


1.She was a Russian and She saw the Communist regime at a immature age.

2.She  was from family of agnostic and largely non-observant ethnic Jews

3 she was an atheist
4.she wrote in The Fountainhead, "The sky over New York and the will of man made visible. What other religion do we need?"

and  "I feel that if a war came to threaten this, I would throw myself into space, over the city, and protect these buildings with my body.”

and  "In New York, people seemed happy with their work and weren't waiting for the weekend."

And   "I said to her, why don't you move." he recalled, "She looked at me sternly and said, 'I'll go down with  New York.'"

5. After several years, Rand's close relationship with the much younger Branden turned into a romantic affair,

6.  individual human happiness and success

7.  view on  woman  "For a woman qua woman, the essence of femininity is hero-worship – the desire to look up to man." (1968)

8. View of economy
Classical liberalism (also known as traditional liberalism[1] and laissez-faire liberalism[2]) is a doctrine stressing the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, constitutional limitations of government, free markets, and individual freedom


9. View on Sex she writes "Tell me what a man finds sexually attractive and I will tell you his entire philosophy of life. Show me the woman he sleeps with and I will tell you his valuation of himself."[46]


10. View on Charity
Rand supported, in principle, the right to give charity but opposed the notion that it was a moral duty, and she did not consider it a major virtue.[55] She opposed all charity and social programs by the government. According to some, her characterization of charity in her fiction was chiefly negative.[56]

11. Her sister .  Rand received a letter from Nora in 1973 and invited her and her husband to America; her sister's views had changed and, to Rand's disappointment, Nora voluntarily returned to the USSR.[59]

12.  She was a smoker
"I like to think of fire held in a man's hand.  Fire, a dangerous force, tamed at his fingertips.  I often wonder about the hours when a man sits alone, watching the smoke of a cigarette, thinking.  I wonder what great things have come from such hours.  When a man thinks, there is a spot of fire alive in his mind--and it is proper that he should have the burning point of a cigarette as his one expression”


Philosophy: Who Needs It?
by Ayn Rand
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


28 posted 06-02-2007 08:45 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

balladeer:
quote:
selfishness is another snippet that, when taken out of context, can become distorted.

I can't help but remind you that using the word "selfish" with a positive connotation is taking it out of context, and distorting the nuance of the word.  It is not synonymous with "self interest" or "self love".  Those kinds of words or expressions are to selfishness, what "growth" is to "atrophy", or what "dive" is to "drown".  

Selfish is still selfish.  And egoism either denies the possibility of it, or ensures the hermetic pervasiveness of it, by attributing ALL motives for action to self-interest.  But nobody lives as if either of these extremes were true ... which may be a clue that they aren't.    

Stephen.
Drauntz
Member Elite
since 03-16-2007
Posts 2907
Los Angeles California


29 posted 06-02-2007 08:50 PM       View Profile for Drauntz   Email Drauntz   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Drauntz

only to Balladeer because he mentioned my name

I have met many and heard many similar kind but much mature ones.

Two friends of mine escaped from Vietnam.

one being jailed three times and finally find a boat and ......and came to US. He later studied medicine and is a medical doctor now. An very decent man who cares and  cherishes human life than worry about an superficial ideal.

Another lady simply float 2 months on the sea and many people died before they reached US. a extremely kind lady..love the freedom and love human relationship.

People from Heidi was turned away.

The little Cuba boy was turned away.

I do not say that her novel is bad..though I never read it and have no plan to read it. but her philosophy is a joke...if nothing new in it..
herself..a product of October Revolution.. brought quite a spirit revolution here...

not my taste.

my thought.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


30 posted 06-02-2007 09:40 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Drauntz, you are certainly entitled to consider her philosophy a joke if you wish, as is your right. She certainly doesn't need me to stand up for her, nor am I qualified to do so. I will say, on a light note, that it's amazing that you listed the fact that she was a smoker in there. Guess a movie about her would have to be R-rated these days, huh?
Drauntz
Member Elite
since 03-16-2007
Posts 2907
Los Angeles California


31 posted 06-02-2007 09:46 PM       View Profile for Drauntz   Email Drauntz   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Drauntz

thank you Balladeer for the read.
wish Toe  on my side
Drauntz
Member Elite
since 03-16-2007
Posts 2907
Los Angeles California


32 posted 06-02-2007 10:00 PM       View Profile for Drauntz   Email Drauntz   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Drauntz

Sir Balladeer, never knew that you had such a history with her.

still I hold my opinion. it was good that I did not blurt out bad words about her.. certainly I do not want to hurt you, dear sir.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


33 posted 06-02-2007 10:45 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

But nobody lives as if either of these extremes were true ... which may be a clue that they aren't.

Interesting theory, Stephanos. It can be either that or a clue that it is true but no one outside of a novel is capable of doing it. By your statement, the teachings of the Bible may not be true, either.

An interesting thing happened last year which is an excellent example of her views on selfishness and sacrifice. When I read it, it really made me smile because it showed so clearly the difference between her views and so many others.

A school janitor had, over the span of 40+ years, donated one million dollars to charity and it made front page news. The janitor had decided all those years ago that donating a million to charity was to be his life-long goal. He worked overtime, took on extra jobs and did whatever he could to raise money until he finally achieved that goal. The newspapers and public applauded him for his sacrifices all those years to make his dream possible. Ayn Rand would say they were not sacrifices at all but done for one selfish reason - his pursuit of a personal goal. Did charities benefit from his dream chase? Of course. Selfishness needs not be detrimental at all and seldom is, as long as the rights of others are not violated. The janitor did not consider the things he did not do as sacrifices - he considered them opportunities to do things to reach the goal. He was a man who had a dream, fashioned his life to achieve that dream - and did it. We should all be so successful in life. That is the difference between her view of selfishness and yours.

She felt the same about self-sacrifice....it's all in the definition. If a mother gives her own life to save the life of her child, it is not sacrifice. She values the life of her child above her own. If she were to sacrifice her life for a complete stranger's, then that would be  sacrifice. Churches preach sacrifice. Governments preach sacrifice. Ayn Rand preaches run from anyone who preaches sacrifice - because they are always referring to YOUR sacrifice - not theirs. (Why does Al Gore come to mind? )

These are reasons why she had so many supporters and so many enemies......all in the definitions. She never insisted that anyone follow her ideals. She simply presented them for people to accept or reject. Fortunately millions of people accepted and made her the most sought-after speaker, and one of the most influential people, of our generation.
  
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


34 posted 06-02-2007 10:49 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Dear Drauntz, you may say anything you like without fear of hurting my feelings. I may agree or disagree but I will never question your right to stand up for your thoughts or beliefs.
Drauntz
Member Elite
since 03-16-2007
Posts 2907
Los Angeles California


35 posted 06-02-2007 11:06 PM       View Profile for Drauntz   Email Drauntz   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Drauntz

Dear Balladeer, thnak you for the words and esp  the kisses.

Hugs and kisses back to you.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


36 posted 06-04-2007 12:06 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Balladeer:
quote:
Interesting theory, Stephanos. It can be either that or a clue that it is true but no one outside of a novel is capable of doing it.


What I mean is that everyone intuitively has a complaint of the true selfishness (not self-interest) of others whenever it shows itself and causes pain.  And, conversely, I've never met anyone who would say (outside of the pedantry of talking about egoistic philosophy) that it is impossible to perform a "self-forgetting" act of kindness.  And I'm not sure why thinking otherwise should be considered a "capability".    

quote:
A school janitor had, over the span of 40+ years, donated one million dollars to charity and it made front page news. The janitor had decided all those years ago that donating a million to charity was to be his life-long goal. He worked overtime, took on extra jobs and did whatever he could to raise money until he finally achieved that goal. The newspapers and public applauded him for his sacrifices all those years to make his dream possible. Ayn Rand would say they were not sacrifices at all but done for one selfish reason - his pursuit of a personal goal.


That's not a true insight, but rather plays on the truism that personal goals are always our desire.  The problem is that Ayn Rand didn't go far enough.  She needed to ask the question as to why benevolence was his goal in the first place.  Is she so certain that it couldn't actually be for the benefit of others?  She could have argued the truism that doing good makes one feel good, and therefore that he did it out of a "selfish" desire for personal pleasure.  But why should doing good bring its own particular kind of pleasure?  And why is it qualitatively different from the kind of pleasure a successful theif gets from his booty?


The problem with egoism is that it offers no real foundation for moral action, other than a form of hedonism.  But if it were that simple, no one would do bad.  It would be pleasant to do good, and vexing to do evil.  


Another problem is that it lacks a way to make distinctions.  The traditional way of viewing motives, is to recognize that it is quite possible that the man did his charitable deed for the fame and praise of others ... or he could have very well done it out of a real desire to help others.  And there can be mixed motives, of course.  But with the egoist there is only one motive ... and it's either a sucess or a failure.  But there's nothing in egoism (that I can see) to dissuade the man who thinks he's happy with a less than virtuous way of obtaining personal pleasure.


By denying that selfishness exists, a gap has been created in the philosophy which doesn't match what we see, believe and practice in life ... Namely that humanity has mixed motives (the knowledge of good and evil) not variations on one.  Why else should we feel it proper to chide some actions, and praise others?  


quote:
Selfishness needs not be detrimental at all and seldom is, as long as the rights of others are not violated.


Then it's not selfishness as defined.  You (along with egoistic philosophy) are redefining the word.  I've already made the distinction between healthy self interest, and selfishness.  A distinction which is virtually impossible in egoism.  (unless you'd like to try and explain the distinction to me between the actions of a philantropist and a swindler).  To show you what I mean ... what if one feels certain that it would be to his gain, to violate the rights of someone else, or at least that it derives him more pleasure than anything else?  Your very correct mention of rights, is something that egoism can't support.  The idea of someone's rights must to be carried with egoism like Procrustes' severed head.  It simply won't lay comfortably in the bed of egoistic philosophy.  


quote:
The janitor did not consider the things he did not do as sacrifices - he considered them opportunities to do things to reach the goal.
  

A "sacrifice" is a matter of fact, regardless of what someone considers it to be.  The fact that someone doesn't call it a sacrifice, doesn't mean that it wasn't.  It could mean simply that they are humble, or self-forgetting enough not to make too much fuss about their own loss.  It doesn't mean that sacrifice isn't a reality ... only that those who are best at it aren't always hungry for recognition.  And about that goal ... we still need to go further and ask about the motive behind the goal.  

quote:
He was a man who had a dream, fashioned his life to achieve that dream - and did it. We should all be so successful in life. That is the difference between her view of selfishness and yours.


I don't disagree at all with that statement.  We should all do that.  The difference between her view of selfishness and mine, is that her philosophy can only praise.  She has no basis for telling others that they should live likewise.  If goals are defined by self, then all goals must fit the description of "selfish".  

quote:
She felt the same about self-sacrifice....it's all in the definition.


Exactly, my point is that she seems to be redefining things, quite arbitrarily.

"Of course language is not an infallible guide, but it contains, with all its defects, a good deal of stored insight and experience. If you begin by flouting it, it has a way of avenging itself later on.  We had better not follow Humpty Dumpty in making words mean whatever we please"  (C.S. Lewis, The Four Loves)

quote:
If a mother gives her own life to save the life of her child, it is not sacrifice. She values the life of her child above her own. If she were to sacrifice her life for a complete stranger's, then that would be  sacrifice.


What does it matter if the recipient of one's gift is an offspring, or a stranger?  It has no affect, either way, on the value (or cost) of the gift.  Therefore removing and reapplying the word "sacrifice" in this way is completely arbitrary.  I see no basis for it.  


If it is love that leads a woman to give of herself for her children, then preaching "sacrifice" beyond one's own family is simply an admonition to expand one's circle of love.  We're not very good at it.  But what happens to strangers that you love?  They cease to be strangers.


quote:
These are reasons why she had so many supporters and so many enemies......all in the definitions.


How about I just say that "enemy" means "a person who know better than you."  It's all in the definitions.  

Seriously though, I'm not her enemy.  But I can understand the frustration caused by someone arbitarily redefining words, with no recognition of the insight which gave birth to them in the first place.  

quote:
Fortunately millions of people accepted and made her the most sought-after speaker, and one of the most influential people, of our generation.


I'm not saying at all, that she never had any insight, or said anything valuable.  The value of "loving oneself" and not making decisions which cause oneself needless grief, is certainly needed advice.

Stephen  
rwood
Member Elite
since 02-29-2000
Posts 3797
Tennessee


37 posted 06-04-2007 07:09 AM       View Profile for rwood   Email rwood   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rwood

quote:
Is there anything considered "too sacred" for film adaptation? If you think "yes", please share what works that might be and why.


I'd like to say yes, but then that would make writing an elitist medium.

I once thought it would be impossible to create movies from Tolkien's works. How wrong was I about that? Sometimes, the only way a book gets read is by visual interpretations, which isn't all bad? But I did think it was funny when some of the teens around me thought Tolkien was a New Author of the "coolest fiction, ever!"

Expression, in all forms, requires knowledge, appreciation, and inspiration from many other outside artistic mediums. In essence: we're all borrowers to a degree, and the art is in the giving back (in my eyes).

I guess the argument is whether the film will do the book any justice, and whether the actors/actresses will bring any talent with them in the roles. Jolie and Pitt? They'd better seriously think about it before they accept the part.

Film could use better backbones, and frankly I'm sick of the utterly useless garbage they're charging 8$ a person.

Great storytellers are able to incite all senses, whether that be the olfactory or applied thought & controversy--which seems to be a 7th sense?

I'd just hate to be the film artist whose only controversy or incitations is how they ruined a perfectly good story.

Ayn Rand is a legend for many reasons, and it's not because she didn't have any flaws.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


38 posted 06-04-2007 10:30 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Thank you for putting such thought and effort into your reply, Stephanos. I doubt that our way of thinking is so far apart. It's more like the differences lie in the definitions  

The problem is that Ayn Rand didn't go far enough.  She needed to ask the question as to why benevolence was his goal in the first place.  Is she so certain that it couldn't actually be for the benefit of others?  She could have argued the truism that doing good makes one feel good, and therefore that he did it out of a "selfish" desire for personal pleasure.  But why should doing good bring its own particular kind of pleasure?  And why is it qualitatively different from the kind of pleasure a successful theif gets from his booty?

Ayn Rand didn't need to ask anything and, as anyone studying her philosophies would know, she would be certain that his goal WAS doing things for the benefit of others. Why should doing good bring it's own particular kind of pleasure? WHY NOT? There are people who live their lives in many such ways. They may dedicate their lives to helping others, or taking care of animals, or crusading for the homeless, etc, etc, etc. There have been Ghandis and Mother Theresas. You are asking why such goals should bring them pleasure? Why is it different than materialistic pleasure? Easy....it is the ONLY satisfying pleasure. "Booty" to use your word means nothing by itself. You can buy the most expensive car, live in the finest house, with a Rolex on your wrist and a bank account that would rival the Vatican's and none of it would assure you of personal pleasure or satisfaction with your life. How many poor rich people do you know? I know many. A wise man once said that the truly rich man is not the man who has the most, rather the man who needs the least.  Unearned or undeserved wealth will not bring the personal happiness one seeks, even though he may be smiling as he passes you in his Lambourghini. How about poetry? Plagiarism is rampant on the internet. Does receiving praise from stealing others works bring pleasure to the thief? Any Rand is simply saying that what we do has it's root in our own personal goals and desires. If the fellow was driven to donate to charity it was because he had an underlying desire to do so - it made him HAPPY to do so. truism that personal goals are always our desire Well, I sympathize with you if they are not because you either (1) have no goals at all or (2) spend your time on things that you hate or do not interest you at all. The flip side of what  you are questioning is not that pretty.


The problem with egoism is that it offers no real foundation for moral action, other than a form of hedonism.  But if it were that simple, no one would do bad.  It would be pleasant to do good, and vexing to do evil


...and I will submit that egoism offers the ONLY foundation for moral action. If it were that simple no one would do bad? Sure, and if all of the Christians and other religions truly believed that their God was  watching over them every second of their lives they would never sin, right?  You are writing under a grave misconception here, Stephanos, that conception being that all personal goals are to do good and be successful. What if one's personal goal was to do evil or fail? What if doing bad WAS their goal? I play poker with a couple of types like that, actually. Sure, they are in the game to win money but it's interesting that they get more mileage (and even a perverse pleasure) out of "almost" winning! They continually talk of hands they just got beat out of, how if only one card had been different, how if the other fellow had incredible luck...and so on and so on and so on. Know the type?  Any Rand states that our actions support our values and views of ourselves. Some people will continue to fail - while trying desperately to succeed - because they do not feel they deserve success. Why? Who can say? Call it continually being reminded of their worthlessness in their formative years, call it the wiring of the brain, whatever. They will continually and subconsciously sabotage their own successes. bad. Women will hook up with complete losers, while complaining that they can't find a good man. Men will proclaim their own high morals and standards and not understand why they are attracted to hookers, prostitutes and one-night stands. People can proclaim anything they want but, as Ms. Rand would say, "Your actions speak so loudly I can't hear what you're saying."

But with the egoist there is only one motive ... and it's either a sucess or a failure.  But there's nothing in egoism (that I can see) to dissuade the man who thinks he's happy with a less than virtuous way of obtaining personal pleasure.

True enough. There are only successes and failures but success doesn't always mean achieving one's goal. It also means STRIVING to achieve one's goal. If the janitor had come up a thousand short of a million, would he have then been a failure? Of course not. He dedicated his life to that purpose and, regardless of the final amount, he was a success. Those who talk the talk but don't even try are the failures. "The man who thinks he's happy?" And who would you be to tell the man who thinks he is happy that he is not? Some famous guy once said, "I think - therefore I am." Stick "I am happy" after the "think" and it's still true. Your complaint of egoism is that it doesn't give us an out for going after less than virtuous pleasures? A bummer, for sure  


By denying that selfishness exists


Ayn Rand certainly doesn't deny that. She applauds it.

(unless you'd like to try and explain the distinction to me between the actions of a philantropist and a swindler).  

that's simple enough. Ayn Rand's definition (which I have already mentioned here) involves not infringing on the rights of others. A swindler certainly infringes on those rights, wouldn't you say? You are dismissing a man's moral code and keying in only on the results of whatever actions.   what if one feels certain that it would be to his gain, to violate the rights of someone else, or at least that it derives him more pleasure than anything else?    That man would not be a part of any teaching of Ayn Rand, nor would he be a true egoist.

The fact that someone doesn't call it a sacrifice, doesn't mean that it wasn't.  

Based on whose superior intellect? Once again, you are attempting to tell the man what his feelings REALLY are. Who, again, are you to do that? The janitor did not consider his actions a sacrifice....period. If it were your life, perhaps you would. He didn't...and that's his choice.

And about that goal ... we still need to go further and ask about the motive behind the goal.  

We don't need to go further at all. The motive behind that goal was the man's personal satisfaction from helping others. I don't understand why it is so hard for you to grasp that.

How about I just say that "enemy" means "a person who know better than you."  It's all in the definitions.  

You may as well. You've already spoken of people who "think they are happy" and someone who "doesn't understand they made sacrifices even though you state they did" so you must be one of those that knows better. Does that make you the "enemy"?   May God protect us from those that "know better".

rwood
Member Elite
since 02-29-2000
Posts 3797
Tennessee


39 posted 06-04-2007 03:07 PM       View Profile for rwood   Email rwood   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rwood

"And who would you be to tell the man who thinks he is happy that he is not?"

Shrinks. They need love and a paycheck too.
Drauntz
Member Elite
since 03-16-2007
Posts 2907
Los Angeles California


40 posted 06-04-2007 03:45 PM       View Profile for Drauntz   Email Drauntz   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Drauntz

To me, she is very simple.

1. She knew what was Torah and God because she was from a Jewish family though   she might have never read it. She knew that God is a  dictator..absolute power( love and justice on His one opinion)

2. she lived under a dictator for some years.

3. she found New York the free world....I wonder why she was so blindly see US...met many and in other countries too. means everything is better than hometown...  a very naive view.

then her "philosophy"...individual right.

1) why Adam and Eve followed the lying of the devil?

2)  why Cain killed Abel?

For Atheist

1) how a lion keeps his territory?
2) how wolf fights for the food?
3) how shark get itself survived all those long years?
4)how sea elephant  keeps his many wifes?

her "philosophy' is not something new. it is animal (including human) instinct.

human being's animal instinct may cause war and torture of others...

my thought
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


41 posted 06-04-2007 06:06 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Drautz;

One of our 'human' instincts (as the human animal) is to be cooperative with each other.  That's what permits us to build communities.

What many fail to realize though is that when we become a part of that community that community 'owes' us the benefits of membership and we 'owe' it the dues of membership.  So while Mike (Balladeer) can talk about not owing anybody anything (which I don't think he personally believes), just by being a part of the United States he 'owes' this community -- as do I -- what is distinct about our species too though -- is that we get to communicate our ideas about what the benifits and rights of the community 'should' be -- and ultimately -- it's what we decide they should be -- or -- our own standards.  

There are different levels of that morality -- collective and individual -- too many forget that without the collective (where Stephen and I may disagree on 'source' but often would find agreement in form) level -- the individual level exists only until one is murdered by anyone who desires to do so for any or no reason.
Drauntz
Member Elite
since 03-16-2007
Posts 2907
Los Angeles California


42 posted 06-04-2007 06:33 PM       View Profile for Drauntz   Email Drauntz   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Drauntz

Local Rebel,"to be cooperative with each other"
is not instinct, it is forced by our weakness.

when three wolves attack a pig, you may think they are cooperating. to me, one wolf wants the hind leg. another one wants the hind leg too. the third one wants the same thing. then one of them may think that if he can not have the hind leg, he may want a front leg. Every one wants a good bite..this is not called a cooperation. to occupy a market...same thing...the animal instinct....I did not say it is good or bad.
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


43 posted 06-04-2007 08:31 PM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

Reggie?

quote:
I'd like to say yes, but then that would make writing an elitist medium.




Thanks lovie.

That's exactly my point. Not that I don't find the conversation and debate regarding the worth of an Atlas who shrugs or not fascinating (and immensely helpful, too, so thanks all)

But with that one sentence you shot a blow dart at the crux of my confusion. (Sometimes I need a little help to even voice what is bothering me... )

Much food for thought for karenity, the brain eating zombie.

Thanks guys...and I'm afraid I won't add much more than my thanks, because I can't pass judgement on something I have yet to finish reading.

But do continue--it helps.
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


44 posted 06-04-2007 09:48 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

I'm a little overwhelmed my Mike's excellent response (Is that condescending? Ah, hell, deal with it!)

I'm curious if anyone who has read both CS Lewis and Ayn Rand seen a connection?

Because I do.

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


45 posted 06-04-2007 09:54 PM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

*karen sits up, interested*

and also must express my gratitude to Mike. I knew he would have a lot to say on this subject, but I must say, with admiration, he said much more than I ever expected! Thank you Mike...

And?

I've got a whole buncha Lewis at my bedside too...so PLEASE...

bring it on!
rwood
Member Elite
since 02-29-2000
Posts 3797
Tennessee


46 posted 06-04-2007 10:13 PM       View Profile for rwood   Email rwood   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rwood

Hey Karen. You're welcome. Thanks for making me think.

Actually, we're all practicing the art of "Objectivism," in one form or another. Which is a philosophy developed by Ayn Rand, herself. Even Drauntz. Sorry Bud. Luv ya, but gotta give credit where credit is due.

But nevah mind that, she's one of my heroes in life because:

"The Fountainhead" produced one of the longest speeches in the history of film. She refused to give up one word. She insisted on the exacts to remain intact and always fought for that. Eeww, rhyme. In a world where novels are edited to death, (start out with a story about a bunny & end up with a story about a perverted turtle.) I admire her determination.




Drauntz
Member Elite
since 03-16-2007
Posts 2907
Los Angeles California


47 posted 06-04-2007 11:27 PM       View Profile for Drauntz   Email Drauntz   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Drauntz

who practices philosophy? I am not a party member of any kind. or followers of any human ideal. I am the slave of my gifted conscientiousness.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


48 posted 06-04-2007 11:36 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

It's exactly that weakness Drauntz, that drives us to cooperate and therefore survive -- otherwise, individually we would become extinct.

Likewise -- systems of cooperation that are inferior also become extinct in the face of competing groups or tribes.

The weaknesses of our own system are evident in the face of rising crime -- criminals is the term we use for those who refuse to cooperate.

The sharing of resources by the wolves is the very definition of cooperation.  Birds do it, bees do it (and I'm not so sure about the fleas) -- but inner-species cooperation is what allows many species to survive.

Dr. Will, in his ifinite wit -- declared us all cannibals -- we just haven't eaten each other because there's plenty of food.

It's basic anthropology, psychology, economics, and philosophy.

Musical chairs.
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


49 posted 06-05-2007 12:16 AM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Well, obviously, Lewis's metaphysics and Rand's epistemology are very different (I'm not a fan of either of these by the way), but both write about a sense of joy in very similar ways.

For Rand, it's the joy of creation, of individual creation. I'm thinking of Galt's gulch again and when, I think it was Galt, who turned down working for Harry (you know, the guy with the green metal). There's a kind of aesthetic, ecstatic joy present. I think it's also present in her romanticism and love of movies.

For Lewis, you can pretty much see the same thing in the Screwtape Letters, The Great Divorce, and in Surprised by Joy if in the two former works it is a contrast, "You mean, you actually let him read a book he likes."

It is precisely this kind of ecstatic aestheticism, this sense that joy, at least a type of joy, comes, not when you're comparing yourself to other people, but when you are doing something that you truly enjoy.

This is what I'll defend in both even if I don't quite agree with a lot of the other stuff they put forward.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> Philosophy 101 >> Atlas Shrugged--the movie?   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors