Rolling In Her Grave

[prole]

The company behind the film Atlas Shrugged Part 1 is replacing 100,000 title sheets from the film's newly released DVD and Blue Ray versions because the copy writer incorrectly described the late Ayn Rand's 1957 novel, Atlas Shrugged, as a story of "self-sacrifice."...

 

...Rand, who in 1964 published a collection of essays called the The Virtue of Selfishness, renounced self-sacrifice on principle. She famously argued that altruism must be rejected "if any civilization is to survive."

 

...On the back of the film's retail DVD and Blu-ray however, the movie's synopsis contradictorily states "AYN RAND's timeless novel of courage and self-sacrifice comes to life...'"...

 

..."You can imagine how mortified we all were when we saw the DVD", said Scott DeSapio, a spokesman for Atlas Productions.

[Dechristo]

She, like many, wrote of idealism, but lived in the real world, at odds with her ideals.

[prole]

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves hobbits, elves, and wizards."

[prole]

She, like many, wrote of idealism, but lived in the real world, at odds with her ideals.

 

In more ways than one. This guy spins a pretty good yarn, if a bit sad.

http://vimeo.com/m/27393748

 

[Dechristo]

Right. Good presentation.

 

One of my longer-standing arguments is that little, if anything, performed by humans has altruism at its heart. Most all we do has self-interest ("it makes me feel good to do...", "my reward comes later on", etc.) as promotion.

 

An irony in Rand's philosophy is the best that can be done for everyone (altruism) is to look toward one's own interest.

[prole]

Sure, but human beings are more densely interconnected than ever before in terms of relying on large-scale systems in order to meet our individual needs. Language, systems of thought, shared institutions, technology, we're essentially social creatures. Our means of exercising "self-interest" at any given moment is dependent on complex webs of social interaction. Radical individualism and Objectivism take structure and history for granted and deny its deeply political nature.

[Dechristo]

Too, self-interest can be completely opposite notions for different individuals. Nature and nurture combine for endlessly disparate ideals.

 

Us being social creatures is at the heart of the matter. Otherwise, there'd be no other who would care to gainsay another's choice.

[prole]

Too, self-interest can be completely opposite notions for different individuals. Nature and nurture combine for endlessly disparate ideals.

 

Us being social creatures is at the heart of the matter. Otherwise, there'd be no other who would care to gainsay another's choice.

 

I guess what I'm saying is, all of this, the notions we throw around to explain ourselves to ourselves themselves are historically determined, endlessly mediated, and politically charged. Social reality constitutes categories of altruism/self-interest, nature/nurture, choice, etc. not the other way round. It's what's interesting about this filmmaker, telling stories about how ideas like these come into being and accepted, and naturalized into systems of thought that come to dominate our ways of thinking about ourselves.

Edited November 12, 2011 by prole

[rob]

fap fap fap fap fap fap!

[olyclimber]

fake and gay

[prole]

I admit, you need to be reeeaallly stoned to get that one.

[Fairweather]

Radical individualism and Objectivism take structure and history for granted and deny its deeply political nature.

 

Not any more than Socialism--or even Cosmopolitanism. Part of Enlightenment appeal was its ability to free the individual from the oppression (real and perceived) of the community. While the unquoted portion of your post is apolitical and accurate, this last bit is way off base--or, at the very least, too narrowly defined or tailored toward a particular world-view.

[Fairweather]

 

I guess what I'm saying is, all of this, the notions we throw around to explain ourselves to ourselves themselves are historically determined, endlessly mediated, and politically charged. Social reality constitutes categories of altruism/self-interest, nature/nurture, choice, etc. not the other way round.

 

I don't believe Immanuel Kant would agree with your first sentence. Or, I believe Immanuel Kant would agree with your first sentence.

 

In any event, not sure what you're trying to say here--or who you've been reading. While it's still open to debate in some circles, I believe the fallacy of altruism in the natural world has been settled. Here, altruism and self interest are, essentially, one in the same. That said, if altruism exists at all (and I have my doubts) it is within creatures who are the sole bearers of intrinsic value--in other words, human beings. The down-side of this is, of course, that it is the epitome of anthopocentrism.

Edited November 12, 2011 by Fairweather

[prole]

Radical individualism and Objectivism take structure and history for granted and deny its deeply political nature.

 

Not any more than Socialism--or even Cosmopolitanism. Part of Enlightenment appeal was its ability to free the individual from the oppression (real and perceived) of the community. While the unquoted portion of your post is apolitical and accurate, this last bit is way off base--or, at the very least, too narrowly defined.

 

Liberalism and socialism and their variants are all part of the Enlightenment tradition. I'm not sure which Socialism you're referring to, but Marx's critique of the political economy of the time was founded on and strove toward a scientific examination and interrogation of actually existing conditions, the structure of ongoing social relations (political, economic, ideological) and their development through history. Classical liberalism elevates abstractions like a narrowly defined "human nature", natural rights, state of nature, individuality and the self at the expense of any thoroughgoing study of how those categories came to be or of society and the economic relations that Marx understood to underpin it. The Marxian critique of liberalism (and its efforts at explaining the world) is that, far from freeing individuals from oppression (or providing tools for its examination), it accepts the exercise of economic exploitation and class domination through capitalist market relations as the "natural", "apolitical", "neutral" state of things rather than as an outcome of ongoing historical processes.

[prole]

 

I guess what I'm saying is, all of this, the notions we throw around to explain ourselves to ourselves themselves are historically determined, endlessly mediated, and politically charged. Social reality constitutes categories of altruism/self-interest, nature/nurture, choice, etc. not the other way round.

 

I don't believe Immanuel Kant would agree with your first sentence. Or, I believe Immanuel Kant would agree with your first sentence.

 

In any event, not sure what you're trying to say here--or who you've been reading. While it's still open to debate in some circles, I believe the fallacy of altruism in the natural world has been settled. Here, altruism and self interest are, essentially, one in the same. That said, if altruism exists at all (and I have my doubts) it is within creatures who are the sole bearers of intrinsic value--in other words, human beings. The down-side of this is, of course, that it is the epitome of anthopocentrism.

 

The altruism/self-interest dichotomy is an irrelevant bore. That our understanding and experience, our getting on in the world is irreducibly social in nature goes without saying. There are no lone wolves in this chimp colony (the exceptions, like Kaspar Hauser prove the point). That we are enriched as individuals when our social orders are stable, functional, and mutually beneficial would also seem self-evident.

Edited November 12, 2011 by prole

[Fairweather]

Radical individualism and Objectivism take structure and history for granted and deny its deeply political nature.

 

Not any more than Socialism--or even Cosmopolitanism. Part of Enlightenment appeal was its ability to free the individual from the oppression (real and perceived) of the community. While the unquoted portion of your post is apolitical and accurate, this last bit is way off base--or, at the very least, too narrowly defined.

 

Liberalism and socialism and their variants are all part of the Enlightenment tradition. I'm not sure which Socialism you're referring to, but Marx's critique of the political economy of the time was founded on and strove toward a scientific examination and interrogation of actually existing conditions, the structure of ongoing social relations (political, economic, ideological) and their development through history. Classical liberalism elevates abstractions like a narrowly defined "human nature", natural rights, state of nature, individuality and the self at the expense of any thoroughgoing study of how those categories came to be or of society and the economic relations that Marx understood to underpin it. The Marxian critique of liberalism (and its efforts at explaining the world) is that, far from freeing individuals from oppression (or providing tools for its examination), it accepts the exercise of economic exploitation and class domination through capitalist market relations as the "natural", "apolitical", "neutral" state of things rather than as an outcome of ongoing historical processes.

 

That Marx failed to properly synthesize empiricism and the rational is why he got it so wrong. We are, in fact, more than the Marxian sum of our economy and our history. We are, in fact, more than Hegelian products of master-slave relationships. Despite his flaws, it seems to me that Kant was closer to figuring out who we are than any of his later tag-alongs--particularly Marx.

[prole]

Philosophy is meant to ask questions, not answer them. I wouldn't presume to think any of these thinkers as the "be all, end all". Only more or less helpful. As far as synthesizing the empirical and rational, I have no idea where that's going, but it sounds good.

[Fairweather]

 

I guess what I'm saying is, all of this, the notions we throw around to explain ourselves to ourselves themselves are historically determined, endlessly mediated, and politically charged. Social reality constitutes categories of altruism/self-interest, nature/nurture, choice, etc. not the other way round.

 

I don't believe Immanuel Kant would agree with your first sentence. Or, I believe Immanuel Kant would agree with your first sentence.

 

In any event, not sure what you're trying to say here--or who you've been reading. While it's still open to debate in some circles, I believe the fallacy of altruism in the natural world has been settled. Here, altruism and self interest are, essentially, one in the same. That said, if altruism exists at all (and I have my doubts) it is within creatures who are the sole bearers of intrinsic value--in other words, human beings. The down-side of this is, of course, that it is the epitome of anthopocentrism.

 

The altruism/self-interest dichotomy is an irrelevant bore. That our understanding and experience, our getting on in the world is irreducibly social in nature goes without saying. There are no lone wolves in this chimp colony (the exceptions, like Kaspar Hauser prove the point). That we are enriched as individuals when our social orders are stable, functional, and mutually beneficial would also seem self-evident.

 

Robert P. Harrison's essay, "Toward a Philosophy of Nature" makes good use of a caged Barcelona Zoo gorilla named Capito de Nievehas and has some good insight here that ties in well with what I think you're trying to say. One of my favorite quotes:

 

"Axiom: Wonder is ignorance that is aware of itself as ignorance."

 

"Hypothesis: Animals are not aware of their ignorance; hence they lack irony."

 

Of course, I immediately thought of TTK and realized this author has failed to consider ego.

 

 

Another favorite:

 

"Axiom: Animals do not need to do justice to their nature, since they cannot betray it."

 

"Hypothesis: Rights exist solely because they can be violated. Only human beings who are self-surpassing, are able to transgress the law of freedom that governs the natural order."

 

[prole]

Robert P. Harrison's essay, "Toward a Philosophy of Nature" makes good use of a caged Barcelona Zoo gorilla named Capito de Nievehas and has some good insight here that ties in well with what I think you're trying to say. One of my favorite quotes:

 

"Axiom: Wonder is ignorance that is aware of itself as ignorance."

 

"Hypothesis: Animals are not aware of their ignorance; hence they lack irony."

 

Of course, I immediately thought of TTK and realized this author has failed to consider ego.

 

 

Another favorite:

 

"Axiom: Animals do not need to do justice to their nature, since they cannot betray it."

 

"Hypothesis: Rights exist solely because they can be violated. Only human beings who are self-surpassing, are able to transgress the law of freedom that governs the natural order."

 

I think I'd rather hear what the Zookeeper has to say, know what I mean

[tvashtarkatena]

Kant I has banana?

Edited November 14, 2011 by tvashtarkatena

[j_b]

Too, self-interest can be completely opposite notions for different individuals. Nature and nurture combine for endlessly disparate ideals.

 

Perceived self-interest may be disparate but objectively our needs are fundamentally very similar and we are much more able to achieve our goals when the needs of others are met as well.

[j_b]

In more ways than one. This guy spins a pretty good yarn, if a bit sad.

http://vimeo.com/m/27393748

 

Good find! Although perhaps too much emphasis is implicitly placed on the role of objectivists in our modern version of pre-1930 speculative boom and bust cycles.

 

It's just amazing to me that supposedly brilliant people fall for such simplistic tripe but perhaps it's that they are merely successful, which is understood to be exhibit A of their intelligence.

[prole]

In more ways than one. This guy spins a pretty good yarn, if a bit sad.

http://vimeo.com/m/27393748

 

Good find! Although perhaps too much emphasis is implicitly placed on the role of objectivists in our modern version of pre-1930 speculative boom and bust cycles.

 

I have "issues" with all of the Curtis' films I've seen, but he's asking fundamentally important questions in a fascinating way. I just kind of sit back and let him do his thing. The Century of the Self and The Trap are must see stuff.