An Atlas-Induced Sh*tstorm Is Coming

[studiodekadent]

But other philosophers did not claim that they lived their philosophy in its every particular, or that they and their loved ones were the living embodiments of fictional heroes.

Objectivists have been wrestling to explain/rationalize this for 40 years and counting.

Daunce,

I think that its quite clear from the members of this forum that there are at least some Objectivists that aren't rationalizing Rand's flaws.

I accept that Rand was not the perfect embodiment of Objectivism practiced in daily life. But it is a matter of elementary logic that this doesn't disprove Objectivism per se. You can find douchebags, assholes and inconsistent practicioners and even intentional hypocrites within every single philosophical group.

My issue is not with it being pointed out that quite a few nominal (and even actual) Objectivists fail at some point/s to live up to their own standards. That is beyond refute.

My issue is with people using Rand's personality flaws and psychological issues (many of which I think are at least understandable given what she suffered, according to Barbara Branden) as an excuse to avoid discussing the actual philosophical propositions advanced by Objectivism, as a shortcut to reject these propositions rather than go through sustained and dispassionate argumentation, and as a character assassination tool against all Objectivists. Its a combination of Argumentum ad Hominem and dodging the question.

[Philip Coates]

> I think that those readers not acquainted with Rand will be able to get his point. [#26]

Jerry, I think the points I made were hurdles to comprehension not absolute barriers for everyone. It's a numbers and percentages game. There are always people who will jump them. But comments readers tend to scan and read quickly. It's best to write things so they're crystal clear and with examples.

The highly abstract, especially a string of them, tends to "float away" for all but the more intellectually/philosophically minded.

And the whole thing is Objectivism has to try to reach -everyone-. I still suggest the kind of way I mentioned can do that. Even in the comments section of an article.

[Jerry Biggers]

But other philosophers did not claim that they lived their philosophy in its every particular, or that they and their loved ones were the living embodiments of fictional heroes.

Objectivists have been wrestling to explain/rationalize this for 40 years and counting.

Daunce,

I think that its quite clear from the members of this forum that there are at least some Objectivists that aren't rationalizing Rand's flaws.

I accept that Rand was not the perfect embodiment of Objectivism practiced in daily life. But it is a matter of elementary logic that this doesn't disprove Objectivism per se. You can find douchebags, assholes and inconsistent practicioners and even intentional hypocrites within every single philosophical group.

My issue is not with it being pointed out that quite a few nominal (and even actual) Objectivists fail at some point/s to live up to their own standards. That is beyond refute.

My issue is with people using Rand's personality flaws and psychological issues (many of which I think are at least understandable given what she suffered, according to Barbara Branden) as an excuse to avoid discussing the actual philosophical propositions advanced by Objectivism, as a shortcut to reject these propositions rather than go through sustained and dispassionate argumentation, and as a character assassination tool against all Objectivists. Its a combination of Argumentum ad Hominem and dodging the question.

First, Daunce's comments: Some philosophers (and certainly ideologues and religious figures) did think that they were the living embodiment of their philosophies. Auguste Comte definately thought this, for which he received a good bit of ridicule. Most founders and early proselytizers of religions (and cult leaders) claimed that distinction.

Unfortunately, as has been remarked upon many times, Rand brought this upon herself by stating in a postscript ("About the author") at the end of Atlas Shrugged, that she was the living embodiment of her philosophy. As the self-destructing Presidential candidate, Senator Gary Hart, - and many other politicians and celebrities have found out (too late, and to their deep regret), if you publicly flaunt your integrity, expect that media reporters will be watching your every move to try to prove that you are a liar.

And, unfortunately, advocates for Objectivism will never hear the end of it. Pointing out hypocrisy in one's character is much easier than trying to refute their stated beliefs. The intellectually lazy and the morally unscrupulous will always resort to the argumentum ad hominem.

There are several ways to deal with this type of attack: 1) Point out the ad hominem and challenge them to debate on the merits of Rand's philosophy (usually they are unprepared or incapable of doing this); 2) not engage in debate at all, if character assassination is their only argument; or 3) deny that Rand had any serious moral flaws and that such criticisms are simply malicious libels, as the ARIans unsuccessfully try to do (to which critics use against them by pointing-out that that kind of denial is typical from members of a cult).

[Peter]

Phil wrote:

And the whole thing is Objectivism has to try to reach -everyone-.

End quote

Spoiler alert! Don’t read Robert’s article if you have access to it! I would be happy to get an early review of any other movie, but not his one. I don’t want to know its shortcomings at this early stage before I have seen it.

I wish I had not read it. I will just print the very beginning.

Peter

TIA Daily • April 14, 2011

FEATURE ARTICLE

Going Galt

The Ayn Rand Factor and the Atlas Shrugged Movie

by Robert Tracinski

After more than 50 years, a movie version of Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand's perennially best-selling pro-capitalist epic in finally coming to the big screen—but through the strangest route possible.

[jriggenbach]

I think what you quote from JG is a perfect example of a typically bad "Objectivish" response one sees, and one that won't change many minds. . . . Maybe he is trying to summarize a whole involved essay by Nathaniel Brnaden. But you just can't do that in a sentence.

Note the tacit assumption by Phil that JG is trying to change minds, that his goal in writing is to do so and that what we are looking at is thus an example of someone setting out to accomplish something and failing because of not doing what he did in the way Phil thinks it ought to be done. Note the absence of even the faintest glimmer of realization on Phil's part that perhaps JG was not trying to change anyone's mind, but was merely trying to express his opinion. Suppose, just for a moment, that this was JG's true goal. I'd say he accomplished what he set out to do. He expressed his opinion.

As for Nathaniel Brnaden, I could not agree more. His involved essays simply cannot be summarized adequately in a single sentence. I am working on an exegetical text, tentatively entitled The Involved Essays of Nathaniel Brnaden: A Reader's Guide, which I believe will become a useful secondary source for those too busy studying Chinese culture to consult the original works.

Helpfully,

JR

Edited April 15, 2011 by Jeff Riggenbach

[Brant Gaede]

I think what you quote from JG is a perfect example of a typically bad "Objectivish" response one sees, and one that won't change many minds. . . . Maybe he is trying to summarize a whole involved essay by Nathaniel Brnaden. But you just can't do that in a sentence.

Note the tacit assumption by Phil that JG is trying to change minds, that his goal in writing is to do so and that what we are looking at is thus an example of someone setting out to accomplish something and failing because of not doing what he did in the way Phil thinks it ought to be done. Note the absence of even the faintest glimmer of realization on Phil's part that perhaps JG was not trying to change anyone's mind, but was merely trying to express his opinion. Suppose, just for a moment, that this was JG's true goal. I'd say he accomplished what he set out to do. He expressed his opinion.

As for Nathaniel Brnaden, I could not agree more. His involved essays simply cannot be summarized adequately in a single sentence. I am working on an exegetical text, tentatively entitled The Involved Essays of Nathaniel Brnaden: A Reader's Guide, which I believe will become a useful secondary source for those too busy studying Chinese culture to consult the original works.

Helpfully,

JR

At least we know what JG was talking about.

Now, about that quote function . . .

--Brant

[PDS]

I saw the movie this morning. I give it a B.

If the writers cleverly intended to merely hint at Rand's philosophy in order to get people to see the movie and then buy the book, in order to set the stage for Part 2, they did a fantastic job of that. I loved the actors, especially Dagny and Ellis Wyatt. Hank Reardon grew on me.

The dialogue was a tad jarring at times--and delivered with too much cool, and not enough heat. I wonder how newcomers will react to the dialogue without knowledge of the background of the book.

The soundtrack was okay. I am not a music person, but I must say I found the soundtrack out of congruence with the feel of the film, especially at the very end.

Edited April 15, 2011 by PDS

[caroljane]

I saw the movie this morning. I give it a B.

If the writers cleverly intended to merely hint at Rand's philosophy in order to get people to see the movie and then buy the book, in order to set the stage for Part 2, they did a fantastic job of that. I loved the actors, especially Dagny and Ellis Wyatt. Hank Reardon grew on me.

The dialogue was a tad jarring at times--and delivered with too much cool, and not enough heat. I wonder how newcomers will react to the dialogue without knowledge of the background of the book.

The soundtrack was okay. I am not a music person, but I must say I found the soundtrack out of congruence with the feel of the film, especially at the very end.

PDS,

Awhile back I asked someone (I think it was Jerry Biggers) if he didn't feel like waiting for this movie was like getting engaged at 18 and married at 58. What is the most you can hope for? This leads me irresistibly to the other Event of the Decade, the royal wedding in two weeks. Over at the Royal Order of Sartorial Splendour we are worried (well, I am) that Waity Katie's need to do nothing wrong and meet public expectations will lead her to appear in a bridal gown that is classic, understated, "tasteful", and boring though unbelievably expensive. Especially that she will wear a boring tiara, the worst of which is the Cambridge Lovers Knot, horribly suitable and what if they make William the Duke of Cambridge. But I digress.

Your reaction to the movie made me think a little of the eager, fit, hopeful groom who's pushing 60. You knew what you were getting, you know there's fabulous lingerie underneath, but somehow that isn't what you imagined coming down the aisle.

[PDS]

I saw the movie this morning. I give it a B.

If the writers cleverly intended to merely hint at Rand's philosophy in order to get people to see the movie and then buy the book, in order to set the stage for Part 2, they did a fantastic job of that. I loved the actors, especially Dagny and Ellis Wyatt. Hank Reardon grew on me.

The dialogue was a tad jarring at times--and delivered with too much cool, and not enough heat. I wonder how newcomers will react to the dialogue without knowledge of the background of the book.

The soundtrack was okay. I am not a music person, but I must say I found the soundtrack out of congruence with the feel of the film, especially at the very end.

PDS,

Awhile back I asked someone (I think it was Jerry Biggers) if he didn't feel like waiting for this movie was like getting engaged at 18 and married at 58. What is the most you can hope for? This leads me irresistibly to the other Event of the Decade, the royal wedding in two weeks. Over at the Royal Order of Sartorial Splendour we are worried (well, I am) that Waity Katie's need to do nothing wrong and meet public expectations will lead her to appear in a bridal gown that is classic, understated, "tasteful", and boring though unbelievably expensive. Especially that she will wear a boring tiara, the worst of which is the Cambridge Lovers Knot, horribly suitable and what if they make William the Duke of Cambridge. But I digress.

Your reaction to the movie made me think a little of the eager, fit, hopeful groom who's pushing 60. You knew what you were getting, you know there's fabulous lingerie underneath, but somehow that isn't what you imagined coming down the aisle.

Carol: I am eager and fit, but a mere (fresh) 48 years of age.

What you say is largely true. I read Atlas Shrugged 29 years ago, having just come home from a stint in the United States Marine Corps. I still remember the music playing in the background as I read that book and I still remember standing up straight with excitement as I read Francisco's money speech. That is/was the power of Ayn Rand--and of most great works of art, I think--but especially Ayn Rand. The "movie" in the mind's eye of a 19 year-old imagination is probably not a fair standard to hold for a movie lo these many years later.

I am going to take my wife to the movie tomorrow night. Although she hasn't read the book, through the osmosis of having been married to me for 20 years, a Phd in English literature, and a very fond view of The Fountainhead, I expect that she will give me a better sense of what the film holds for the intelligent (but uninitiated) masses.

Edited April 15, 2011 by PDS

[Selene]

A group of business owners in Effingham helped bring the movie to the area by guaranteeing a minimum number of ticket sales.

EFFINGHAM - When the movie "Atlas Shrugged" opens this weekend around the country today, the RMC Theatre in Effingham will be among the locations.

In Illinois, Effingham and Peoria are the only locations outside metropolitan Chicago where the movie will debut. A group of business owners in Effingham helped bring the movie to the area by guaranteeing a minimum number of ticket sales.

The movie is based on a Ayn Rand book from the 1950s that looks into the future. The future shows excessive government regulation during a time of high inflation and economic turmoil sending innovative industrialists to live by themselves on a piece of land in Colorado.

As the government problems grow, the market-based environment becomes attractive.