About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 9:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I just love watching these critics squirm over a movie with something other than the traditional altruist, everyone-is-equal philosophy:
quote  The Incredibles" is "brilliantly engaging," Mr. Klawans says - which makes it "more worrisome, if you lack blind faith in the writings of Ayn Rand."
 I'm sure Klawans was more than happy to watch Monster's Inc. dump on businessmen and capitalists. Now he gets to sit and "worry" as a movie that dares to praise the good for being the good rakes in box office cash and rave reviews.

Sanction: 1, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 9:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hey Andrew, thanks for putting that up.

There are people who really hate Ayn Rand's guts. I'm sure you know that already but I'd be interested in the SOLOist's experiences with Ayn-hating.

I think the reason is simply that she challenges their worldview. People hate to think they have lived 10, 20 or 30+ years under terribly mistaken ideas. And/or that their parents & teachers did. Rand can uproot a person's core ideas so quickly that the shock can be pretty awful.


Post 2

Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 11:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
My freshman year, I was discussing a paper with my ethics professor and mentioned that I liked Ayn Rand. She replied that Rand is certainly "very seductive," which I thought was a smartass way of saying anyone who likes Ayn Rand hasn't really thought through the issues.

Then there was the time last year when I mentioned to a pinko acquaintance that my favorite philosopher was Ayn Rand. He said, "Oh, well that's just philosophy for twelve year olds." Later, he was headed out for a smoke and offered me a cigarette. He goaded me again and said, "You Rand types are all real big on smoking, right?" (Probably one of the few times in history when someone was offered a smoke in bad faith.)

Later I saw him campaigning for a state initiative to raise tobacco taxes.


Post 3

Friday, November 19, 2004 - 12:33amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I doubt my lecturers at university here in the UK had even heard of Rand...till I started citing her in my papers anyway ;-)

And I agree - The Incredibles sounds brilliant! Thanks for posting the review Andrew :-)

MH


Post 4

Friday, November 19, 2004 - 3:58amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The Incredibles IS brilliant! I hope to write a review of it soon, but it is an AMAZING movie on many levels, philosophy being one.
Everyone interested in this site should see it.

Post 5

Friday, November 19, 2004 - 5:34amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

The movie's big mistake, according to some critics, is illustrating the importance of faith by hooking it onto Santa, who - let's face it - doesn't exist. This may bother religious viewers who consider faith too important to fritter away on myths.


Anyone else find this comment about Polar Express funny?

Post 6

Friday, November 19, 2004 - 6:13amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I've often been called a "Randroid" despite the fact that I'm hardly ARI material. I've also heard similar arguments to the "philosophy for twelve-year-olds" comment and "sounds nice on paper, but...." *SIGH*

Post 7

Friday, November 19, 2004 - 7:01amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"The Incredibles" is the best movie of the year.  Beats "Spiderman" and "Ray".

There is a sense in which, even when I agree with Rand, I think she does some bad philosophizing.  It is that she philosophizes with "charity towards none", so to speak.  There is rarely an attempt to present the opposing philosophy in the best possible light before destroying it or an attempt to engage philosophical enemies in debate.

I guess that to the degree that you agree with her moral views and her presentations of the issues that she is discussing, you can overlook that.  But sometimes, I find the distortions in her presentations noteworthy enough to agree with some of the descriptions of her philosophical writings as "amateurish".


Post 8

Friday, November 19, 2004 - 7:44amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Check out Chris Sciabarra's entry at L&P: "Rand the Incredible!"

http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/8604.html

Post 9

Friday, November 19, 2004 - 8:06amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks for the tip!  I will look for this to appear in a local theater. 


Post 10

Friday, November 19, 2004 - 2:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'm excited about seeing this movie. :-)

Lance asked about experiences with Rand-hating. I almost feel like coining a new term for it. How about Rand-phobia?

I have had a few experiences at university like this. (I've heard people say she's a novelist not a philosopher; I've heard people say she's a philosopher not a novelist.) But I've also found some of my lecturers to be very open to my discussion of Rand in essays. I've tried to keep pushing Rand, where appropriate, and think that I've broken some ice as a result. Where I've found this extraordinarily difficult to do, however, is any time I have taken a class in the analytic tradition of philosophy. Many in this tradition, I am convinced, privilege their own particular style of philosophy. Other philosophic styles tend to be marginalised and disparaged. I have found much more sympathy outside the realm of analytic philosophy, even from post-modernists.

Another phenomenon I've noticed from both intellectuals and, unfortunately, friends of mine is almost an Oedipus complex type reaction against Rand. After her methodologies have been grasped and understood, after many of her basic principles have been integrated into their thinking, I've noticed a number of people then turning against Rand with quite some vehemence and vitriol, even as they continue to use her methods and ideas. Convenient excuses lie in her views of a woman president, sexuality etc.. as if these were fundamental to her philosophy. She is derided for a few mistakes and errors, and rarely given credit for a brilliant methodology and system of ideas. This methodology continues to be used, without recognition, because other thinkers embraced subsequently don't have any thorough methodology. This attitude I find extremely odd, disappointing and unjust. (It's even more unfair from people who know just enough Objectivism to take its fruits, but not enough to comment with justification on whole areas of her thought, e.g. someone making a strawman attack on Objectivist aesthetic theory as though it's one and the same as Rand's forceful defense of her personal aesthetic tastes, while never bothering to grasp the theory itself.)

A basic intellectual principle should be: credit where credit's due.


Post 11

Friday, November 19, 2004 - 2:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Cameron, great input.  And Andrew, thanks for posting this.  I now plan on seeing this movie.

Post 12

Friday, November 19, 2004 - 5:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Whatever the underlying messages - if any - it appears "The Incredibles" is an instant hit, while "The Polar Express" is not.
HA!!!!!  I don't dare pin any hope to this, but a girl can dream.

I cannot *wait* to see this movie.  Thanks for posting this, Andrew!


Post 13

Friday, November 19, 2004 - 7:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I guess that to the degree that you agree with her moral views and her presentations of the issues that she is discussing, you can overlook that.  But sometimes, I find the distortions in her presentations noteworthy enough to agree with some of the descriptions of her philosophical writings as "amateurish".
Ayn Rand didn't have a degree in philosophy, but who cares?

I guess I must be one of those who overlook Rand's "amateurish" presentation. I share her moral views. I think she is original.  It does not matter to me whether she's considered by others a philosopher or not.

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 11/19, 7:03pm)


Post 14

Friday, November 19, 2004 - 10:39pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hong,

Ultimately, in estimating her value to you, that is what matters.  In trying to estimate her objective value and originality, things like what other philosophers (and scientists, of course) have written about those topics and how their viewpoints and evidence stack up against hers must be taken into account.  Of course, no one expects Rand to have read every philosopher in the world.  However, the strength of a philosopher, in my opinion, is based upon how charitably he interprets his opponents before refuting them and in his attempts to seek people who make the best case for their positions.  It takes a lot of confidence in your position to seek the best arguments from the opposition and destroy them.

Anyways, an excessive preoccupation with philosophy sometimes leads to an over-estimation of what philosophy can do.  There are many questions that you have to look at reality repeatedly to answer.  Those are in my opinion, once we are not too far apart on the importance of experimentation and logic epistemologically and civility and self-interest ethically, more important than arguing over the nature of being or existence or whether we need to be rational to survive.


Post 15

Saturday, November 20, 2004 - 8:26amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Next,
No argument from me regarding your thoughtful post above.

I better not to stray into academic philosophy arena and make fool of myself. ;-)  After all, my only formal "philosophy" learning in school was on second hand Marxism, Leninism, and first hand Mao Zedong Thoughts and Deng Xiaoping Theories!  



Post 16

Saturday, November 20, 2004 - 7:12amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
[quote] Anyone else find this comment about Polar Express funny?[/quote]

Yes, I did. That quote is almost as amusing as "Christian Science."


Post 17

Saturday, November 20, 2004 - 11:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I saw this movie tonight. I hear that the makers of this movie have not unveiled any explicit connection to Rand or Objectivism.

However, I can assure you, Rand was written all over this one (and what a joy it was to see such a life-affirming story!). Imagine my joy at seeing objectivist principles take on such life in a particularly creative form!

Whatever surrealistic detractors that were imposed by "cartooning" the plot, they were more than offset by the life-affirming, hero-worshipping story line (and the skillful CGI work surely didn't hurt).

The story of the young boy, Dash, was inspiring. He had been made to feel guilty about his abilities. His ecstatic joy upon hearing that he would get a chance to challenge himself, to achieve, and to be all that he could become - for the first time in his life - was uplifting.

The envious, wannabe, arch-villain was also very illuminatively depicted. At one point, he proclaims the sinister desire to make everyone a super-hero - so that no one would then be special. There is surely something repulsive about egalitarianism, and this point was definitely not lost on the story line, which speaks volumes toward the philosophical insight of the writers.

Ed



Post 18

Saturday, November 20, 2004 - 11:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"The envious, wannabe, arch-villain was also very illuminatively depicted. At one point, he proclaims the sinister desire to make everyone a super-hero - so that no one would then be special. There is surely something repulsive about egalitarianism, and this point was definitely not lost on the story line, which speaks volumes toward the philosophical insight of the writers."

This storyline was done in a graphic novel by Marvel Comics called EARTH X. In the story, a genetic mutation is triggered that gives the average human some kind of superpower, so that the traditional marvel heroes are rendered obsolete. Some lament this, some, like Peter Parker, who had grown tired of being Spiderman, felt that he no longer had the responsibility to save people all the time and could finally pursue his own life...in the end, the moral is that it's not the powers that make a hero, but the "spirit."



Post 19

Sunday, November 21, 2004 - 11:01amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
quote  The envious, wannabe, arch-villain was also very illuminatively depicted. At one point, he proclaims the sinister desire to make everyone a super-hero - so that no one would then be special. There is surely something repulsive about egalitarianism, and this point was definitely not lost on the story line, which speaks volumes toward the philosophical insight of the writers.
**** SPOILER WARNING **** 

I really didn't know what to make of the villain's storyline. On the one hand, as you point out, it seems to be an attack on egalitarianism and envy of the abilities of others.

But it also comes across as an attack on technology. The only evil superhero in the movie was the one who had to design and build his own powers, rather than simply be born with them. (In that way, he's a lot like Batman.) And while his methods were surely grotesque, his ambitions weren't all that sinister. Wanting to make everyone a superhero with science and technology isn't necessarily an egalitarian goal. So I wasn't sure what to think about the villain.


Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.