Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Lord of the Blings
It's looking increasingly like a sure thing that Ayn Rand's scrappy band of multi-millionaire underdogs will finally make it to the big screen within the next few years. Erstwhile colleague David M. Brown of Laissez Faire Books has the scoop, including news that to accomodate the epic scope of Atlas Shrugged, it will be filmed as a trilogy. Given the way Rand broke the book up, that raises the intriguing possibility that audiences will be queued up for summer blockbusters titled Non-Contradiction, Either-Or, and A is A. I will gladly pay cash money—and possibly even gold bullion—to hear a trailer with Peter Cullen growling, basso profundo, "This summer... the movie event you've been waiting for... Non-Contradiction!" Let's just hope they have the good sense to reserve the extended Galtalogue for a DVD extra.
|7.14.06 @ 10:12AM|#
A more hideous idea I've never heard. It is a too long rant that
makes three or four very good observations.
My concern is that it will create backlash largely because of its
paper thin characterizations. "So, hungry people are looters, eh?"
Egad.
|7.14.06 @ 10:15AM|#
Not a chance this thing will ever see the inside of theater. If
it does get made (which I also highly doubt) it will end up as a
direct to DVD Left Behind-ish release.
Jason, I forgot that the characterizations in most Hollywood movies
are so rife with depth and pathos...
|7.14.06 @ 10:19AM|#
Also, since when is Laizze Faire books the new source for
Hollywood news?
An executive decision was made on a Jolie vehicle without every
west coast rag ejaculating the words "Angelina Trilogy!" in a dozen
flying logos?
At least the Shrugged movie that didn't happen in the 90s was
covered in Variety.
|7.14.06 @ 10:20AM|#
So will the Objectivists be lining up for days before the
premier? I wonder what their costumes will look like.
And will Triumph the Insult Dog be there to heckle them?
|7.14.06 @ 10:21AM|#
I have some altnerative titles:
Ayn Rand Is Superior To All Other Persons Past, Present Or
Future
Ayn Rand Was Never Wrong
Disagreeing With Ayn Rand Is Evil
|7.14.06 @ 10:29AM|#
Sanchez, you whim-worshipping, Anti-Life second-hander! Your sarcasm betrays your Anti-Capitalism, Anti-Man worldview, exposing your naked nihilism to a world of idiot altruists and their achievement-hating comerades!
|7.14.06 @ 10:29AM|#
I think the interesting question is which of the various
"Objectivist" groups will denounce the movie in the face of praise
from one of the others?
O'ism has more schisms and less rationality than the Catholic
Church.
hugs,
Shirley Knott
|7.14.06 @ 10:30AM|#
Fifty years after its publication, "libertarians" still feel threatened by it. More, please.
|7.14.06 @ 10:31AM|#
I think I will wait until all the movies come out as extra-long
extended versions on DVD.
I'll have my wife, dressed in leather, lash me down to the couch
and force me to watch all three in a row. And she'll make sure that
I show absolutely no sign of weakness.
That would be cool.
|7.14.06 @ 10:32AM|#
If they do like Lord of the Rings, the first and third movies will be fairly accurate, but the second movie will be about John Galt having a temporary lapse and joining the Communist Party.
Warren|7.14.06 @ 10:34AM|#
They are so going to fuck this up. But in the mean time, cheap
laughs...
How the movie was pitched:
It's an epic melodrama and we don't meet the hero till the third
movie. The protagonists are all self-righteous pricks, while the
antagonists are affable vampires (figuratively speaking). It's an
action-tragedy that turns into a science-fiction comedy in the
third act. It's The Aviator meets The Incredibles!
Well, whad'ya think?
You say this thing has vampires eh?
|7.14.06 @ 10:37AM|#
I kind of liked Atlas Shrugged (but I read it so looonngg ago and before I discoverd more decent and thoughtful libertarians like Hayek). But I also think Ayn Rand has probably done more harm than good for the movement. I can't count how many times I've tried to talk to a non-libertarian about libertarianism instead found myself fending off straw. So many conversations have started like this: "So you're a libertarian eh? It's kind of a fascist philosophy of Ayn Rand right? She wasn't a fascist? Right, but poor people don't matter, isn't that right?" Ad nauseum. I agree with Ligon: be prepared for the hate.
|7.14.06 @ 10:39AM|#
More alternate titles (w/ suggested casting):
Atlas Mugged w/ Jim Carrey as John Galt, Amy Sedaris as
Dagny Taggart and George Lopez as Francisco d'Anconia
Atlas Drugged w/ Robert Downey, Jr. as John Galt, Liza
Minelli as Dagny Taggart and Cheech Marin as Francisco
d'Anconia
|7.14.06 @ 10:42AM|#
So, something that is exceptionally libertarian, with definite
sympathies for limited government, rationality and that finally
portrays business in a good light, and all you idiots can do it
pile on it?
Hey, Shirley, on the rationality part your wrong. On the schisms
part, you can insert libertarian in there and the statement remains
factual.
Cultist � that was funny.
PL � knock it off, you know you�re being intellectually
dishonest,
|7.14.06 @ 10:42AM|#
So, something that is exceptionally libertarian, with definite
sympathies for limited government, rationality and that finally
portrays business in a good light, and all you idiots can do it
pile on it?
Hey, Shirley, on the rationality part you're wrong. On the schisms
part, you can insert libertarian in there and the statement remains
factual.
Cultist � that was funny.
PL � knock it off, you know you�re being intellectually
dishonest,
|7.14.06 @ 10:44AM|#
thoreau,
Assuming you're referring to Faramir, he was a pretty minor
character in LotR...and in the book there was little to no conflict
in the Frodo-Sam thread of the story. It worked in the print
medium, but it wouldn't work on film.
|7.14.06 @ 10:56AM|#
crimethink-
I wasn't referring to anything in particular, just the fact that
the second movie had some HUGE deviations from the book, plus a
bunch of added stuff that wasn't in the book.
Removing stuff is understandable. Small additions are
understandable. Adding a ton of new stuff while removing a bunch of
good stuff is just wrong.
And there was lots of conflict in Frodo and Sam's story. It all
involved Gollum.
Anyway, if they do this like LotR, the second movie will bear no
resemblance to the book, but the first and third movies will be
pretty good.
|7.14.06 @ 10:58AM|#
JeffP:
"Jason, I forgot that the characterizations in most Hollywood
movies are so rife with depth and pathos..."
LOL Well, there is that. Maybe what I mean is that the
characterizations are thin in a way that is easily perceived to be
nasty.
|7.14.06 @ 10:58AM|#
crimethink-
I wasn't referring to anything in particular, just the fact that
the second movie had some HUGE deviations from the book, plus a
bunch of added stuff that wasn't in the book.
Removing stuff is understandable. Small additions are
understandable. Adding a ton of new stuff while removing a bunch of
good stuff is just wrong.
And there was lots of conflict in Frodo and Sam's story. It all
involved Gollum.
Anyway, if they do this like LotR, the second movie will bear no
resemblance to the book, but the first and third movies will be
pretty good.
|7.14.06 @ 11:00AM|#
I can only hope this thing gets released at the same time as the movie version of "State of Fear". Just to watch the entire population of Berkley have a stroke.
|7.14.06 @ 11:02AM|#
crimethink-
I wasn't referring to anything in particular, just the fact that
the second movie had some HUGE deviations from the book, plus a
bunch of added stuff that wasn't in the book.
Removing stuff is understandable. Small additions are
understandable. Adding a ton of new stuff while removing a bunch of
good stuff is just wrong.
And there was lots of conflict in Frodo and Sam's story. It all
involved Gollum.
Anyway, if they do this like LotR, the second movie will bear no
resemblance to the book, but the first and third movies will be
pretty good.
|7.14.06 @ 11:03AM|#
"So, something that is exceptionally libertarian, with
definite sympathies for limited government, rationality and that
finally portrays business in a good light, and all you idiots can
do it pile on it?"
Good novels can sometimes become good movies.
Third-rate novels filled with one-dimensional characters, onerous
monologues, blatant sensationalism, and disturbing sex scenes
become the kind of movies that will be parodied and ridiculed by
statists and used to weaken the argument for freedom.
You should understand if you've ever watched "Reefer Madness" - an
absolutely wretched movie that is now used to mock the very
argument that it was intended to support.
|7.14.06 @ 11:05AM|#
I can only hope this thing gets released at the same time as the movie version of "State of Fear". Just to watch the entire population of Berkley have a stroke.
|7.14.06 @ 11:18AM|#
And will someone please make a film of Elvis Shrugged?
http://www.comicsutra.com/cs/stripped/strippedv1i17.htm
|7.14.06 @ 11:21AM|#
"This summer, coming to a theater near you..."
Fade in on black screen with "WHO IS JOHN GALT" written in Art
Deco-style white letters.
"One man, who would stop the engine of the world..."
Cut to montage of explosions, Wyatt's Torch, and a train rushing
into a tunnel. Visuals are overlayed with nu-metal "Here comes the
BOOM" type song.
"He would lead the men of the mind...and a few women"
Cut to from behind shot of blond man sitting at a radio
microphone.
"One woman would try to destroy him"
Cut to Angelina Jolie wearing a simple black business suit striding
down a train platform. A bum approaches and asks, "Who is John
Galt?" She raises her riding crop and swings towards his face. Cut
to random explosion, and the image of a large calendar on a sooty
skyscraper.
"This July, let Warner Brothers take you to a place you've never
been.."
Cut to shot of rocky mountains, and a small plane sputtering as it
seemingly passes through a mountainside. Cut to inside view of the
plane looking down at a small villiage.
"In a world that is falling apart.."
Cut to images of welfare mooching second-handers in bread lines,
CGI shot of train derailing, buildings crumbling, random
explosions, people listening to a Mozart symphony. Our final shot
is from inside a train tunnel as a locomotive bears down on us.
Visble on the front are the letters "TT". The train passes in a
burst of sound. We see flashes of light, hear breaks squeal, and
something that could be an explosion.
"Find out: Who Is John Galt!"
Fade to black screen, with lettering, "I swear by my life my love
of it..."
Cue one more explosion.
|7.14.06 @ 11:21AM|#
Russ R thinks it's third rate.
It must be so.
Thanks for the enlightenment...six million copies sold and still in
print; that means nothing.
|7.14.06 @ 11:28AM|#
Number 6, not sure if you're going for sarcasm (a riding crop...goodness), but the rest of that was awesome, sarcasm or not.
|7.14.06 @ 11:35AM|#
Ayn Randian,
You know, the Bible has way more copies in print and has been
around a lot longer. Then there is Dianetics. :)
|7.14.06 @ 11:35AM|#
The Hollywood version will feature:
A precocious smart-alec kid.
Blackfoot's "Train Train" (possibly remade by Coldplay)
A fight atop the coal car.
A conspicuous lack of cigarettes.
An unscheduled appearance by Michael Caine.
|7.14.06 @ 11:36AM|#
Randian-A mixture of sarcasm and seriousness, I guess. The
riding crop, the Mozart, and the nu-metal soundtrack were jokes.
The rest is just kind of how I imagine the trailer being. Glad you
enjoyed it, though.
It's fascinating to me how much emotion comes up among libertarian
types when Rand's name is mentioned. Nothing else, not even
religion of HFCS seems to spark the same sort of ire.
|7.14.06 @ 11:40AM|#
Whoever said this is going straight to DVD is a goddamn retard. This is the second most influential book next to the bible. The movie will more than likely do no justice to the book but jesus christ straight to DVD?!??!? What a dumb ass!
|7.14.06 @ 11:40AM|#
It's fascinating to me how much emotion comes up among
libertarian types when Rand's name is mentioned.
On grylliade, Eric the 0.5b suggested that the real "Are you a
libertarian?" test should have one question: "What do you think of
Ayn Rand?"
If you have a strong enough opinion on Rand (one way or the other)
to answer with more than one or two sentences, then you're probably
a libertarian :)
|7.14.06 @ 11:44AM|#
Ha, thanks PL. (I thought of that as soon as I posted...I should
know better than to try to slip one by Reasonistas, they're
sharp).
For a serious moment, don't we practically beg famous people to
support libertarian ideas as a way of having them highlighted? And
now a movie, from an award-winning studio, with two of the most
recognizable screenfolk around touting explicit libertarian ideals
upon which this very magazine was founded comes along, and all some
can do is laugh about it?
Disclosure; I, yes I, don't even really care for Shrugged; I find
Rand's non-fiction exhilarating and much, much better. Read the
"Voice of Reason" sometime; the war on healthcare, the fact that
there's no discernible difference between Rs and Ds; and lots of
other things we discuss daily she was talking about in the freakin'
70s. She had an amazing mind and I can't wait for a mass-marketed
film to finally expose people to new ideas.
|7.14.06 @ 11:47AM|#
greg,
It is not the second most influential book behind the Bible. The
survey that this claim was based on wasn't scientific; it was the
sort of survey that MSNBC runs. In other words, that claim is a
myth.
Number 6,
I don't think anyone here is being emotional about the issue.
|7.14.06 @ 11:50AM|#
Hey Ayn Randian -- I'll stand by my claims, especially in light
of the exceptionally rational and thorough debunking you
provided.
And if you think Rand's non-fiction is sterling, try reading some
of the original thinkers from whom she stole her material.
As far as I can see, there's nothing in Objectivism that is both
true and original.
Even her famous 'measurement ommission' notion is second hand, and
badly bowdlerized in the taking.
Ayn Rand a serious and genuine thinker? One might as well consider
Jim Carrey a serious Shakespearean actor. Or Lord Keynes a
committed capitalist.
hugs,
Shirley Knott
|7.14.06 @ 11:53AM|#
OK PL lemme guess your a christian who thinks this country is based off christian ideals right?
|7.14.06 @ 11:54AM|#
PhiLip-See Shirley's comment as evidence of my contention. Emotional may not be the right word, but many libs are, at the very least, passionate on this subject.
|7.14.06 @ 11:56AM|#
You want thorough?
if you think Rand's non-fiction is sterling, try reading some
of the original thinkers from whom she stole her
material.
Prove she stole anything. Where's your link or a reference?
Even her famous 'measurement ommission' notion is second hand,
and badly bowdlerized in the taking.
Who is it second-hand from? And if it is second-hand, how is it
lacking from the original, and in what ways? Again, a link
please.
Ayn Rand a serious and genuine thinker? One might as well
consider Jim Carrey a serious Shakespearean actor. Or Lord Keynes a
committed capitalist.
A vile and untrue ad hominem. So rational...so thorough...you're a
paragon of thought, Shirley.
|7.14.06 @ 12:02PM|#
I find that the most libertarians who despise Rand are either christians or anarchists both of which are equally retarded.
dhex|7.14.06 @ 12:06PM|#
or they may just have a dislike for dogmatic atheist
whackadoodles!
at least that's my excuse. that said:
A TRILOGY? WHAT THE FUCK ARE THEY PUTTING IN THE DOPE IN
HOLLYWOOD?
|7.14.06 @ 12:07PM|#
Okay, I have to admit that I was pretty horrified when I heard
rumbles about Jolie being cast as Dagny Taggart... but, Number 6,
you've almost got me convinced. :-)
As for the Objectivist/Anti-Objectivist pissing match that's just
sprung up, both of you, please chill out and remember that we're
all (most of us, at least) on the same side here, working towards
freedom. Right?
|7.14.06 @ 12:07PM|#
Nothing brings out the hacks and imbeciles like an Ayn Rand post. I swear I hear banjo music playing somewhere.
|7.14.06 @ 12:12PM|#
greg,
Heh. I am an atheist.
Ha ha ha.
Ha ha ha.
Ha ha ha.
Number 6,
I really needed that laugh. There's your emotion. :)
|7.14.06 @ 12:12PM|#
Number 6 is right, Greg. You must not be here often.
Phil Lip, don't start until I've gotten some beer and popcorn.
|7.14.06 @ 12:14PM|#
greg,
I'm not an anarchist either.
I am fairly troubled by the cultish nature of what Rand has wrought
and significant problems associated with her philosophical
claims.
|7.14.06 @ 12:20PM|#
Clean Hands - I think that's part of my point. Again, not to sound like a broken record, but a big studio puts out a movie with huge star-power that is explicitly about libertarian ideals! and most people want to talk about how bad Rand was. If we're on the same side, celebrate the movie and encourage friends to see it; stop tearing down something that could expose the world to libertarian ideas on a mass scale.
|7.14.06 @ 12:22PM|#
So, we got a badly written polemic novel that appeals a fanatical group of worshipers being made into a movie. Sigh... Didn't we learn anything from the "Left Behind" movie or "Battlefield Earth?"
|7.14.06 @ 12:24PM|#
Am I the only one here who's cautiously optimistic about
this?
Seriously. If nothing else, from a stylistic standpoint alone
(costumes, sets, design) this has hardcore potential to be an
excellent movie.
Was Rand heavy-handed and irritating?
Yeah.
Was she the deepest libertarian-type thinker?
No?
Oh well.
I guess you'll just have to just hold out for that big screen
adaptation of Human Action.
Bitch all you like about this, but, there are a lot of people,
myself included, who've come to libertarianism via the Objectivist
route. Assuming a movie version remains true to the roots of the
book, I would expect others to start thinking of things in those
terms as well.
Jesus Christ. Can't you people at least take some joy from the fact
that a pro-liberty novel might get the bigscreen treatment?
Or should I just see this thread as a microcosm of why
libertarianism continues to be a political non-starter outside of
coffee shops and bars?
Warren|7.14.06 @ 12:25PM|#
Re: Comment by: Number 6 at July 14, 2006 11:21 AM
YEA! [claps hands]
That was awesome.
|7.14.06 @ 12:28PM|#
Whoever said this is going straight to DVD is a goddamn
retard. This is the second most influential book next to the
bible.
Ah, that explains why there are so many more Objectivists than
Muslims.
|7.14.06 @ 12:29PM|#
Rand wrote shitty pulp novels, had an unhealthy fixation with
rough sex, bought into her own legend, fostered a number of
mutually destructive relationships, and eventually disowned all her
friends.
Hence, man's life is not the standard of value, and A is certainly
not A.
|7.14.06 @ 12:32PM|#
in one post mediageek makes half my argument.
If you're ever in Columbus, mediageek, let me know and I will buy
you a six-pack.
|7.14.06 @ 12:37PM|#
Mediageek-I tend to agree with you. Rand certainly influenced my thinking, although I'm not an objectivist. If they actually do this movie, I'll go see it.
|7.14.06 @ 12:40PM|#
What gets me is how most of you hacks probably came in your pants about "V" and somehow your pussies get chapped at the idea of an AS movie.
|7.14.06 @ 12:41PM|#
Again, not to sound like a broken record, but a big studio
puts out a movie with huge star-power that is explicitly about
libertarian ideals! and most people want to talk about how bad Rand
was. If we're on the same side, celebrate the movie and encourage
friends to see it;
Not sure I'd assume that's going to be the effect, or even the
intent. I remember how excited some of us Heinlein geeks were to
hear that Starship Troopers was going to be made into a
movie. The script twisted the book until people who weren't
familiar with his books thought Heinlein was a goosestepping
fascist.
Atlas Shrugged already caricatures most of its characters.
Imagine what Hollywood can do with them, if the screenwriter's in a
pissy mood.
|7.14.06 @ 12:41PM|#
AR-
Cool!
I think that a lot of people in this thread are just embarassed
that they read Atlas Shrugged in high school or college,
and don't want to admit that they liked it.
Hell, I think they should give Ragnar his own movie.
|7.14.06 @ 12:57PM|#
"I remember how excited some of us Heinlein geeks were to
hear that Starship Troopers was going to be made into a movie.
"
And if Paul Verhoeven* were writing/directing this, I'd feel the
same way.
While I'm hesitant to take the article at it's word that the
scriptwriters are doing their best to be true to the original
works, I'll still hew to my original line of being cautiously
optimistic.
*Fucking condescending asshole. His movies suck. Even Robocop.
|7.14.06 @ 12:59PM|#
"I remember how excited some of us Heinlein geeks were to
hear that Starship Troopers was going to be made into a movie.
"
And if Paul Verhoeven* were writing/directing this, I'd feel the
same way.
While I'm hesitant to take the article at it's word that the
scriptwriters are doing their best to be true to the original
works, I'll still hew to my original line of being cautiously
optimistic.
*Fucking condescending asshole. His movies suck. Even Robocop.
|7.14.06 @ 1:01PM|#
Number 6,
If I were dependent on the writings of Rand to become a libertarian
I wouldn't have become one. Then again, by the time I got around to
Rand I was already fairly heavy into *gasp* Kant. :)
|7.14.06 @ 1:02PM|#
Greg: I was just thinking about how V got creamed for being too
much Shrugged when it came out.
However, there is zero (not near-zero) chance that three Shrugged
movies are going to be playing at the cineplex near you, at least
not under Hollywood's current system. I don't care who stars or who
directs. Not gonna happen.
|7.14.06 @ 1:05PM|#
Jeff I don't think a movie of Jolie shitting in a bucket would go straight to video.
dhex|7.14.06 @ 1:05PM|#
unrelated: starship troopers is a great movie. dunno if i could
get through the books. (sci fi generally doesn't interest me,
unless it's of the wsb gay sex magick variety)
i was never able to get into rand's fiction. and her nonfiction
writing seems more or less pointless given the wealth of better
alternatives. pro-freedom or not, being a bad writer is a far worse
sin than having shitty politics. maybe i should read it, but
there's lots of stuff in the western canon i should get around to
first.
|7.14.06 @ 1:05PM|#
Mediageek. NO! We CANNOT be happy about this movie! Don't you
understand! She was SICK SICK SICK! And a HYPOCRITE! And a FREAK!
MY GOD WHAT"S WRONG WITH YOU PEOP-
(clutches chest)
(foams at mouth)
(falls over)
Warren|7.14.06 @ 1:08PM|#
Hey, I love Rand. While I've found fault with her and moved on,
one of the larger shrines in my pantheon remains dedicated to
her.
I don't dismiss the notion that this could be a huge success. Even
that it could lead to greater acceptance of libertarian ideas. It
could, but I seriously doubt it. I doubt it because there are ten
thousand was to fuck it up.
|7.14.06 @ 1:10PM|#
How to say this delicately ...
The claims about its influence vs. the Bible are almost certainly
overblown, but I think we can agree that AS is surprisingly
influential. It is surprising in that its message seems to have
some stickiness.
I suspect that the stickiness of the book has to do with its
simplified world view. Such a world view has great appeal to people
in late highschool / early college who are just waking up as
political beings. People tend to read Rand at just the right
time.
I don't think she is much a of a writer, frankly, and she is a
pretty horrible novelist. Her philosophy is hurt by her insistence
that she had the whole answer, when in fact what she had were a
couple of really valueable observations. There is nothing wrong
with that at all. Very few people have successfully interjected
important ideas into public discourse as successfully.
Recognition of the perversity of altruism is very important. The
self as a value is important. Her description of the problem of
collectivism is very important and very accurate.
She should have stopped somewhere about there. Her attacks on Kant
were absurd - she clearly didn't even understand his argument about
the world in itself. Just saying that "objective reality" is
obvious is not a refutation of the Critique of Pure Reason. The
insistence that reason alone was enough to understand the world
just side steps all western philosophy from Descarte forward.
Hello? Empiricism?
At the end of the day, Rand is important for describing the problem
and its implications better than most have - but for me her image
is tarnished by a boat load of oversimplified claims.
dhex|7.14.06 @ 1:10PM|#
yeah, this is more or less why people who are into rand scare
the shit out of me.
i mean, fuck, sorry i made fun of your jesus. won't happen
again.
|7.14.06 @ 1:11PM|#
greg,
I've never seen "V" (if by that you mean "V for Vendetta" - I did
see the "lizards invade" mini-series when I was a kid though :)
).
|7.14.06 @ 1:19PM|#
Disclosure: With full recognition of all its flaws and
ridiculousness, I love Atlas Shrugged. People having been telling
me since I was a teenager that I will get over it, but I still love
it.
I'm sure any movie they make is going to be pretty awful. Jolie is
a terrible choice for Dagny Taggart I'd prefer someone like Jodie
Foster if the movie had any chance of being good, which it
doesn't.
Still, it will be fun to see how they dramatize a book that's
already melodramatic.
|7.14.06 @ 1:19PM|#
I think he means lizards V, which is what I referenced above. The whole scientist-as-scapegoat and engineers vanishing into an underground movement were bashed for being too much like Shrugged.
|7.14.06 @ 1:44PM|#
With full recognition of all its flaws and ridiculousness, I
love Atlas Shrugged.
Me too. Problem is, all of the flaws and ridiculousness are going
to be magnified on the big screen, as compared to the good stuff. I
think that the anachronism of the book--passenger trains, for
pete's sake!!--will detract from the movie's message by turning
into something like the libertarian version of "Sky Captain and the
World of Tomorrow." Which interestingly also featured the
delectable Ms. Jolie.
|7.14.06 @ 1:46PM|#
Ligon, before you spout of sheer nonsense about Rand�s beliefs
on epistemology, you might want to actually know what the hell
you�re talking about! Rand said reason is enough, but you�re
spouting off about rationalism. In fact, Rand said that empiricism
and rationalism had to go hand-in-hand, and there is no a priori
knowledge, which kind of just makes you look like an idiot for not
even knowing basic philosophy terms. When she said reason, she
meant knowing where your emotions come from rather than acting by
whim or impulse.
You say she made oversimplifications: cite one, with evidence and
say why. Other than that, you�re just jumping on the �she�s alright
but was too much� boat.
|7.14.06 @ 1:47PM|#
Ligon, before you spout of sheer nonsense about Rand�s beliefs
on epistemology, you might want to actually know what the hell
you�re talking about! Rand said reason is enough, but you�re
spouting off about rationalism. In fact, Rand said that empiricism
and rationalism had to go hand-in-hand, and there is no a priori
knowledge, which kind of just makes you look like an idiot for not
even knowing basic philosophy terms. When she said reason, she
meant knowing where your emotions come from rather than acting by
whim or impulse.
You say she made oversimplifications: cite one, with evidence and
say why. Other than that, you�re just jumping on the �she�s alright
but was too much� boat.
|7.14.06 @ 1:49PM|#
ATR, Jodie Foster is exactly who I pictured as
Dagny.
Of course, Jolie is more likely to go along with the sex
scenes.
Can you see Scarlett Johansson cast as Cheryl Brooks (James'
wife)?
|7.14.06 @ 1:53PM|#
I generally agree with Mr. Ligon's assessment of Rand. I also
happened to enjoy Atlas Shrugged, even including the
monolog / harangue. (I even kinda like the film version of The
Fountainhead.) Objectivism shares many attitudes and
conclusions with libertarianism, and whatever anyone's opinion of
Objectivism, per se, may be, we should generally welcome political
allies where we find them. But none of that translates into holding
out much hope for an Atlas Shrugged movie.
First, is this being done as a vanity project -- a labor of love by
true believers, or with the aim of making a "major motion picture"?
The two are not always mutually exclusive, but they sure as hell
usually are. If a trilogy is really the project, if Lionsgate and
Baldwin are really looking at around $40 million most of which
would go in the first part and if additional funding ends up being
driven by the guaranteed box office of a major star, then the
likelihood of the project turning into, as William Goldman would
say, Hollywood Horseshit skyrockets. The only important word in the
phrase "motion picture industry" is industry.
Forget Christianity versus Objectivism. (An astonishingly
overreaching and idiotic comparison, by the way.) If this is a true
labor of love, the proper analogy to Atlas Shrugged isn't
Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, it's Travolta's
Battlefield Earth.
I would be delighted to see a faithful film adaptation that also
worked as a movie. But I don't see how anyone can seriously argue
that it's likely.
|7.14.06 @ 2:01PM|#
YEs, Warren. We are now writing the script.
We are putting in a few changes though.
We are now holding auditions for a actress to play Anita Blake.
|7.14.06 @ 2:06PM|#
Jeff I don't think a movie of Jolie shitting in a bucket
would go straight to video.
It'd be on the internet first.
|7.14.06 @ 2:07PM|#
PL � thanks for the reference�I will certainly look at his works. Despite our reputation, this Objectivist isn�t one who puts his fingers in his ears and hums Rachmaninoff to drown out criticism. If Hoffer has pointed, interesting criticism of concept-formation and selfish ethics, then I am willing to hear him out.
|7.14.06 @ 2:10PM|#
Of course, Jolie is more likely to go along with the sex
scenes.
Clean Hands, Jolie may have been chosen for that reason, but
looks-wise she's all wrong to play Dagny. If this movie DOES get
made I reserve my right to remain outraged about the casting
choice. I think of Jodie Foster in "Contact" and imagine she'd
bring a lot of the same aspects to the role of Dagny
Can you see Scarlett Johansson cast as Cheryl Brooks (James'
wife)?
She has the vacant eyes going on, but I don't think she's meek
enough to play Cheryl.
A bitchy blonde is also needed to play Lillian rearden
|7.14.06 @ 2:11PM|#
PL � thanks for the reference�I will certainly look at his works. Despite our reputation, this Objectivist isn�t one who puts his fingers in his ears and hums Rachmaninoff to drown out criticism. If Hoffer has pointed, interesting criticism of concept-formation and selfish ethics, then I am willing to hear him out.
|7.14.06 @ 2:44PM|#
CleanHands
Anne Hathaway as Cheryl Brooks (my epiphany of the hour. Casting my
ideal Atlas Shrugged movie is more fun than doing real work)
Jadagul|7.14.06 @ 3:07PM|#
I agree with everyone about the risk that this movie will turn out lousy, despite my enjoyment of the book. But I really really want them to have "Miami 2017" on the soundtrack.
|7.14.06 @ 3:08PM|#
But I really really want them to have "Miami 2017" on the
soundtrack.
If my love of Billy Joel could be combined with my love of Atlas
Shrugged, I would have to die happy.
|7.14.06 @ 4:23PM|#
I note that as this thread peters out that neither Ligon nor Shirley Knotts have deigned to answer why they smeared Rand without proof, reason or even a sense of knowing what they were talking about.
|7.14.06 @ 5:16PM|#
ATR, then I think we have to go with Meryl Streep for Lillian
Reardon. (Streep and Hathaway had pretty good chemistry in The
Devil Wears Prada, as a bonus...)
But who for Hank Reardon?
|7.14.06 @ 5:20PM|#
Viggo Mortensen as Hank Reardon? Or maybe (just maybe) Tom Selleck? (Selleck might be better as John Galt, come to think of it.)
|7.14.06 @ 5:28PM|#
Viggo Mortensen as Hank Reardon?
Yes. That would work. And Chris Cooper as Galt.
Antonio Banderas (of course) as D'Anconia. Or Lou Diamond
Phillips.
Ragnar would be hard. I'm thinking maybe Jean Reno.
solune|7.14.06 @ 5:31PM|#
Hmmm....Lots of interesting stuff in the discussion. Where to
begin.
I liked Atlas Shrugged, not for its philosphy but for giving me the
realization that there were other people that thought like me. As a
primer for people that don't think, it's pretty good if a bit long
winded.
I certainly don't agree with everything in Ayn's writings (fic and
non), but I find them a fabulous place to begin questioning the
status quo. The best piece of advice I've read from her was "find
out for yourself." If the movie spurs people to that end, then
it'll be doing something good.
As far as accuracy goes, LOTR wasn't bad in bringing in the
readers that have never read his stuff. Yeah, I missed
some parts, but as a movie treatment it was done pretty well and
grabbed the psyche of a moviegoing crowd that generally
doesn't read, especially fantasy. In fact it
spurred on purchasing of that genre.
Wouldn't a movie that got people thinking, and researching their
own beliefs be better than nothing?
Part of what happened with the LOTR movie to make it work, but
won't happen with AS is the spying fans that
badger the director to include important aspects. Remember, the
Director had to make allowances for running time
and for millions of rabid fans that would have
decimated the movie had he taken too many liberties.
Instead he got rabid fans practically forcing friends to read the
books to see what they missed.
Now: alternate history? Why not, instead, use a current
scenario, specifically control and operation of the Internet as a
metaphor the the train system? Broken switches would produce the
same effect: manual intervention.Reardon Steel could be Reardon
optical cable, fast cheap and proprietary, or routing gear. Hell,
it could even be a new highly conductive metal ideal for
microprocessors. We're already running into a world where the
gov'mint want to interject their protocalls into network hardware,
in effect nationalizing private communications.
Train wrecks are computer malfunctions that crash planes, mismanage
hostpital resources, or some such.
ooo....I hear you all cringing now. I feel the icy stares...but, if
you want the ideas made relevant to the attending non-fan,
you have to mix in references with which they will recognize and
cause them to think.
You can bet there will be references to modern pop-culture. That's
a given. But how deeply will the references to today's
problems run?
Atlas Shrugged could easily be twisted into a vacuous period piece
where everything libertarians care about is tossed under the carpet
as incidental to Jolie's body in a business suit.
|7.14.06 @ 5:36PM|#
Randian:
Sorry I had to work there for a few hours. I'm going to leave out
the parts of Rand that make sense to answer your snark.
"In fact, Rand said that empiricism and rationalism had to go
hand-in-hand, and there is no a priori knowledge, which kind of
just makes you look like an idiot for not even knowing basic
philosophy terms. When she said reason, she meant knowing where
your emotions come from rather than acting by whim or
impulse."
Her outright refusal to address Hume on any level is her biggest
failing. Hume has a very detailed explanation of why empiricism AND
NOT REASON forms the basis of knowledge. Kant went on to illustrate
why empirical knowledge can never be applied to the world in
itself, which is also criticized but unrefuted by Rand.
Rand had no clear ideas about epistemology that I ever read. She
defined, over and over again Reason as the only way to knowledge.
She denied skepticism in favor of a child like belief that if you
just think about it, you know what is real and what isn't. She
believed that you could reason yourself to values and that values
are facts. She oversimplifies the case by assuming her desired
end.
It is not the case that reason substitutes for skepticism. It is
certainly the case that perceptions can be fundamentally deceived.
Because you are constrained to view the world through perceptual
goggles, it is not the case that you can know much about the world
in itself. Is does not tell you anything about ought.
Did I mention that she rejected skeptical empiricism as invalid,
and denied its central role in the entire scientific process?
|7.14.06 @ 5:40PM|#
I may have suggested this before, but what about
casting only libertarian actors? I'm not sure who is really
libertarian, but Tom Selleck, Kurt Russell, Clint Eastwood, and
Drew Carey are supposedly in that category.
I just tried Google. The Advocates for Self-Government has a list of
libertarian celebrities. Accepting that list as true, I note
that our casting options for Dagny are quite limited. Quite.
|7.14.06 @ 6:06PM|#
Gee, Ayn Randian, some of us have to work for a living. Alicia
would have approved, why don't you?
But you know, it's truly funny to hear someone who did not produce
anything more than a dismissive sniff (copyrighted, I believe, by
that ignorant twat Rosenbaum), demand better treatment in responses
to her petulant little whine?
Jason hit the high points, but let me point out that if you knew
anything at all about modern philosophy (oh, say, post-Descartes),
and anything about Rand's education, you could pretty easily
determine that the closest she came to an original philosophical
insight was ripped off and bowdlerized from a tradition she
scorned.
Or check out Mises remarks on her "brilliant insight" that man had
to earn a living.
Or her idiocy that only the English language has the phrase "make
money". Surely a Russian Jew would have some minimal familiarity
with Yiddish, and should have known the various phrases involving
"macht gelt". But know, Ayn "knew" better.
You might also take note of the tragically funny response of that
ignorant twat to her perceptual delusions caused by medication
while hospitalized.
THAT is truly the sign of a mind suffering from an idee fixe -- and
a demonstrably incorrect one at that.
hugs,
Shirley Knott
|7.14.06 @ 6:13PM|#
Here is why this argument is over before it even began: you
obviously have not read enough Rand or Objectivist thought and
literature to even intelligently debate the philosophy.
Her outright refusal to address Hume on any level is her
biggest failing.
She addresses Hume. Strike One
Kant went on to illustrate why empirical knowledge can never be
applied to the world in itself, which is also criticized but
unrefuted by Rand.
Oh he illustrated that, did he? I forgot that Immanuel is now
philosophical fact. And she addressed the substance and main focus
of what Kant had to say. And just because you think it's unrefuted
doesn't mean it is. We'll call this one a foul tip on your
part.
Rand had no clear ideas about epistemology that I ever
read.
Really? She only held forums on concept-formation,
measurement-omission and the validity of the senses, all carefully
detailed in The Introduction Obejctivist Epistemology. It
was probably just too complicated for you. Strike two.
he defined, over and over again Reason as the only way to
knowledge. She denied skepticism in favor of a child like belief
that if you just think about it, you know what is real and what
isn't.
Have you even cracked her nonfiction, or are you just going off of
what some half-baked professor told you in Freshman Philosophy?
Strike Three.
If you're really interested in having this debate, and I am, I
recommend two things:
1 - It's obvious you've never really read Rand. Your statements
about what she has and has not done make that painfully clear. Read
some.
2 - Come to rebirthofreason.com and offer your views there; it's
not rabid Randianism, if you think you've got it all over Rand I
will debate you there. This topic is usually too dry for most and
this thread will be gone within a day.
My real e-mail is here if you are honestly interested.
|7.14.06 @ 6:21PM|#
if you knew anything at all about modern philosophy ...you
could pretty easily determine that the closest she came to an
original philosophical insight was ripped off and bowdlerized from
a tradition she scorned.
Fine, you think I am ignorant about modern philosophy. Educate me.
PROVIDE A LINK OR A REFERENCE, Shirley! It's not tough! Get a poor
ignorant soul started.
Alicia would have approved, why don't you?
First, it's ALISSA. Way to go. Starting off strong. Secondly, I
think it's funny you had it all over me this morning and still have
yet to prove where Rand is a second-hander or a thief by simply
providing some proof.
Basically, your post was "Yeah, what Jason said, with some
gratuitous insults thrown at Rand, that twat (how intelligent,
Shirls); oh yeah, and read Mises! And she may have gotten a phrase
wrong!"
Ha ha ha.
|7.14.06 @ 7:44PM|#
Number 6:
I like your ideas for the trailer. Unfortunately, you broke the Two
Iron Rules of all movie trailers:
1. "In a world ..." should be the very first words you
hear from the voice-over.
2. You need to show Tom Lee Jones doing something.
Pro Libertate:
I may have suggested this before, but what about casting only
libertarian actors?...
I was thinking about this too, but as you hinted, it pretty much
limits us to casting Drew Carey and Kurt Russell as John Galt and
Dagny.
|7.14.06 @ 8:59PM|#
Hank Rearden would be the hardest of the main characters to
cast, I think.
Edward Norton circa Primal Fear would make a decent Eddie Willers.
He does brooding well.
|7.14.06 @ 10:14PM|#
"She addresses Hume. Strike One"
No. She dismisses him without addressing his arguments. She asserts
baldly that ought is derivable from is and then fails to do so.
What she does is assume her conclusion - that the existence of self
implies the primacy of self interest AS A MATTER OF REASON. See
Nozick's critique. She wiffed badly on the is - ought
problem.
She argues that reason applied to sensory data yields concepts and
'non-concepts'. Yet, she neatly sidesteps such significant issues
as Hume's analysis of the abject failure of reason to justify such
rational concepts as causation. In dismissing Humean skepticism,
she goes off the ledge. She lauds science but does not pause to
note that it has - gasp - quite a bit of faith baked right
in.
This same construction of concepts leads to that most irritating
and dangerous of Objectivist tendencies, to dismiss skepticism in
favor of what is presented as reason but is in fact faith.
As for her issues with Kant, well, I can't shake the idea that she
really had issues with Hegel. I've never seen a refutation of the
Kantian epistemological problem. You head can only be filled
through your senses, your sensory data is organized, at a minimum,
through space-time processes that are entirely involuntary, and so
your apprehension of the world in itself is entirely defined by how
your brain/mind constructs your mental world. You can't take off
your space-time goggles. You can't know what the noumenal world is
like independent of your mental processes.
|7.14.06 @ 11:45PM|#
What a shame that Simone Weil did not write fiction. Philosophicla Jew vs, philosophical Jew she wrote better than Ayn, and treated her friends better,
|7.15.06 @ 1:54AM|#
Well, I'm not one of the sharper tacks in the shack on this blog
so I missed some of the weaknesses of AS or Rand's other writings
the first time around. I loved her argument and defense of the
creative, productive life and the illumined clarity in her defense
of the view that one's life has value in and of itself. And one of
my favorite parts of the book was actually the money speech by
Fransisco - up until then I knew nothing about economics so it was
very illuminating for me.
That being said, there's reason to think that a movie like this
could do more harm than good for liberty. Libertarians are smeared
with labels like "Lamborghini Libertarians" and/or as necessarily
being rugged individualists, anti-community, unbridled seflishness,
overarching egoism - not of these have much to do with
libertarianism. Unfortunately, the works of Rand tend to play into
these stereotypes; the tone of Rand's language, her use of language
to describe non-genuises as 'second-handers' (her target might have
only been 'political man' not the ordinary person on the street but
these tend to get conflated by the ordinary non-libertarian
reader), and in her other writings an implication that only the man
of genius matters or that the heart does not have its own
intelligence (see some of Branden's writings on this one). There's
nothing to suggest a celebration of the marvelous web of creativity
that everyone - big and small - contributes to in their own way.
There's no appreciation for spontaneity in any form - dismissed as
'whims.' In much of Rand's writings there's is very little in the
way of even a nod towards older, traditional humane values of
compassion, charity, or social beneficence. For these reasons, and
the reason that the movie could either not include enough of the
right elements or be played as camp (Chris Cooper as Galt or a
toothless Chris Cooper - ala Adaptation - as Galt?), my enthusiasm
for this 'pro-liberty' project is dampened.
That being said, I think it's unfair to dismiss Rand as a lousy
writer or a twat or something else derogatory. She wrote novels
that inspired thousands of intelligent people like many people on
this blog. She invented her own system of thinking - if not wholly
original at least a major innovation; and what is wholly original?
(okay, one weakness in her thought was also this point along with
her assumption that she was wholly original). She took on major
themes of libertarian thought and put them into nearly flesh and
blood concrete forms. I don't think she should be dismissed so
lightly or unfairly. But, but....she could have done so much
more....
If only Hayek or Mises had written a novel. I loved to see their
thinking about spontaneous orders put into the concrete. But those
are more subtle notions, so probably much more difficult to do.
David Nieporent|7.15.06 @ 2:40AM|#
Anyway, if they do this like LotR, the second movie will
bear no resemblance to the book, but the first and third movies
will be pretty good.
Except that they'll cut off the third movie before Galt's big
speech.
|7.15.06 @ 2:49AM|#
Another reason I think Atlas and Rand's writings in general will
not go over well with the general public has to do with the
division between made and spontaneous orders. Religion, like
capitalism, is largely a spontaneous order. Sure, there were
prophets in the major religions who had a radical influence on the
older religions, that in some cases led to the development of a new
religion, but these revolutions took place within the context of
the older evolved traditions. And in some cases, it wasn't even the
prophets intent to create a new religion - such as Jesus, who
sought only to reform Judaism.
Religion, like markets, will not suddenly disappear when someone
comes along to try to remake the world anew. If anything, religion
is becoming ever more popular. So, a pro-liberty book, that smacks
of something like a utopian man-made order polemic, will never
really cut it with the general population. A novel that would go
hand in hand with other spontaneous orders, that would make the
case for capitalism from that vision, would have more hope. But
Rand's vision smacks more of the utopianistic, make the world anew
vision - see Galt's Gulch and her general in-yer-face attack upon
religion and any sort of spirituality. Holding up reason as a value
is one thing - thinking that it will replace religion, even if the
man of genius just goes on strike, is another thing; reason will
never replace any sort of spontaneous order, religion especially;
trying to make it into a new god, to replace the religion
altogether, is recipe for failure. The communists tried to suppress
religion and markets, to eliminate them. Both those efforts failed
spectacularly. I submit that for similar reasons, that society
cannot be simply reinvented by rational means that attempt to
subvert evolutionary development, Rand's version of libertianism
will also suffer a similar fate with the general populace.
Interesting topic. I sometimes wish Hit and Run would slow down on
the flow of topics so there was more time to go into some of these
in more depth.
Lev Lafayette|7.15.06 @ 6:35AM|#
Oh, bring on Battlefield Earth in drag.
Look, I have sympathy for Ayn as a person, she obviously had a hard
life and was scarred by the transformation of her mother country.
But really - she's a poor writer with average politics and her
followers have a fundamentalist approach to everything that's
rather reminiscent of Trotskyite cults or Lyndon La Roche
supports.
There is no conspiracy about why Rand isn't taught in university
philosophy classes. It has very little to do with with supposed
"left-wing academics" but rather because Objectivism cannot provide
any interesting or useful answers to contemporary philosophical
questions. For example;
1) Does Objectivism utilise Platonic or Nominalistic approaches to
metamathetics, number theory and set theory?
2) Does Objectivism have anything constituting a considered
approach to paraconsistent and/or polyvalent logic?
3) Does Objectivism have anything to say about Godel's
Incompleteness theorem? How does this affect their own claims to be
a "theory of everything"? Is there an objectivist on the planet who
even understands the mathematics of the problem?
4) Is capitalism preferred axiomatically as an economic system or
is the choice utilitarian? If it were to be shown in particular
contexts to be strongly against felicity, would a preferred system
be adopted? Or is it sufficiently deontological to justify the
genocide against indigenous people as Rand herself once
claimed.
5) How does Objectivism deal with the facticity that consciousness
and language are generated through shared symbolic values? Is their
any contribution at all to linguistic philosophy?
6) Are observations theory laden? If so what does this do the
possibility of objective knowledge? If not then how does science
advance? How about the relationship between observers and quantum
mechanics? What is the objectivist philosophy of science
anyhow?
I could go on but the point should be made to anyone but a fanatic.
Ayn Rand contributes next to nothing to contemporary philosophy.
Supporters of the political theory should at least have the
internal honesty to admit that. I suspect they won't.
|7.15.06 @ 10:44AM|#
But really - she's a poor writer with average politics and
her followers have a fundamentalist approach to everything that's
rather reminiscent of Trotskyite cults or Lyndon La Roche
supports.
Nod to all but maybe "average."
The thing is, and I'll just begin by acknowledging that I'm far
from a Rand scholar (life is too short), is that the notion that
Rand would be ignored or shunned by academic philosophers on the
basis of personal animus or ideological bias is simply absurd.
(Which is not to deny that there is a great deal of background
ideological bias among many professional philosophers.) She
obviously had read Aristotle and Kant and others, but like many
bright people outside the academy she was largely ignorant of the
wealth of critical analysis and commentary about these and other
major philosophers, and so her own commentary even when she got it
right was often greeted, for lack of a better phrase, as old
news.
Ironically, Rand's admiration of Aristotle and loathing of Kant
stemmed from what she shared with both of them -- she was a system
builder, a "Big Picture" thinker in an age when, at least in the
English speaking world, analytic philosophy had rejected the very
notion of the Big Picture. That's not to say there aren't
self-described Kantians or Aristotilians running around today, but
in a sense the very idea sounds quaint and pointless -- as though
thoreau would describe himself as a Newtonian or an
Einsteinian.
In fairness to Rand, I don't think it is reasonable to have
expected a philosophy of mathematics from her, and as far as I
know, she was oblivious to mathematical logic. We can do the dance
over Kant's insistence that synthetic a priori knowledge
exists because of the meaningful truth of mathematics and Euclidian
geometry ("See, Meno, how your slave knows geometry without ever
having been taught?"), but his phenomenal (pun intended) attempt to
reconcile empiricist and rationalist epistemology aside, my guess
is that most people with a post-Wittgensteinian understanding of
these, um, problems would just shrug and smile at the realization
that Rand was storming a castle that had, for the most part,
already been abandoned.
|7.15.06 @ 12:12PM|#
"post-Wittgensteinian understanding of these, um, problems would
just shrug and smile at the realization that Rand was storming a
castle that had, for the most part, already been abandoned."
Of course, there are those who would argue that post
Wittgensteinian epistemology is abandonment. :)
Once you aren't a Realist anymore, which is how I recall PI winding
up, I can see how the whole exercise becomes uninteresting.
So, I think what I'm saying is - Realism, skeptical empiricism,
Hume Hume Hume. Nyah Nyah. Or something.
|7.15.06 @ 2:07PM|#
Of course, there are those who would argue that post
Wittgenstein's epistemology is abandonment. :)
Once you aren't a Realist anymore, which is how I recall PI winding
up, I can see how the whole exercise becomes uninteresting.
The capital R bothers me, but I'd say it isn't so much realism,
properly understood, that W- rejects as empiricism in the whole
'rationalism versus empiricism' duet -- "Analytic, a priori, less
filling!" / "Synthetic, a posteriori, tastes great!" -- of early
modern philosophy.
If you mean by abandonment the realization that who and what we are
and what our relationship with the world outside us is cannot be
reduced to those sorts of tidy looking dichotomies (or, for that
matter, Kant's attempt to reconcile them) or that it simply is the
case that the criteria for judging descriptive statements differs
from those for analytic statements, normative statements, etc., and
that therefore the Big Picture of the Tractatus (and its
illegitimate child, logical positivism) is not merely wrong but
wrongheaded, then, sure, there is a sort of abandonment going on.
Wittgenstein himself says (somewhere in Remarks on the Foundations
of Mathematics) "Not empiricism and yet realism in philosophy, that
is the hardest thing."
And as for Humean skepticism, do you really think we don't have
sufficient grounds for believing in causation or induction? (As
opposed, I hasten to add, to a bulletproof theory.) Does anyone
really believe that?
|7.15.06 @ 7:54PM|#
"And as for Humean skepticism, do you really think we don't have
sufficient grounds for believing in causation or induction? (As
opposed, I hasten to add, to a bulletproof theory.) Does anyone
really believe that?"
It depends on what you mean by sufficient grounds. It is irrational
in the most literal sense and it can't be experienced. Hume goes on
to note, and this is the part people gloss over, that you have no
choice but to assign causality in the presence of constant
conjunction. Skepticism means you have limit your habits of mind to
only those that are unavoidable.
The sterling test of belief is whether you believe something as
surely as you believe the apple will fall when you drop it.
|7.15.06 @ 8:09PM|#
"Not empiricism and yet realism in philosophy, that is the
hardest thing."
My recollection is that Wit in PI claimed that empiricism was a
kind of pseudo problem originating with the philosopher's poor use
of language. I thought I remembered in his focus on analyzing
descriptive statements, he abandoned the whole realism project. If
you have a realism, empiricism rears its head again in fundamental
ways. Here I'll confess that I'm not comfortable with exactly where
Wittgenstein wound up because Philosophical Investigations was so
focused on what he saw as flaws in constructing the problem. He
seemed very dismissive of both empiricism and realism in favor of
what seemed to me to be something narrower.
I've felt, musing in my armchair, that while the PI approach moved
mountains in analytic philosophy (by reducing it to linguistics
;)), it doesn't really have much to say about the successes of
science, which are really successes of empiricism.
|7.15.06 @ 11:08PM|#
Hume goes on to note, and this is the part people gloss
over, that you have no choice but to assign causality in the
presence of constant conjunction.
Indeed. And so the work of the insight that we observe nothing but
constant conjunction only ends up being significant if we believed
that there had to be something more to establish causation
with Cartesian certitude. Well, what would that "more" be?
Similarly, Hume's famous "no ought from an is," while brilliant as
an attack on certain underlying but rarely voiced assumptions about
what the nature of normative reasoning and discourse "must be,"
ultimately boils down to a specific case of the general principle
that you can't deduce a conclusion that isn't (to borrow a bit from
Kant) already contained in your premises. Big whoop.
Look, I'm not arguing against empiricism qua scientific
method, and I certainly don't think Wittgenstein was, either. But
let's distinguish empiricism as most working scientists are
comfortable with the term from the purely philosophical
epistemology that arose largely in reaction to rationalism and
which, in turn, drove Kant crazy. Wittgenstein's attack on
empiricism (and rationalism), such as it was, was an
attack on the notion that knowledge has to be grounded in one or
the other sort of epistemic justification because there has to be
some essential quality common to every true assertion of knowledge.
Well, what if there isn't? Why should there be? Who says?
As for big R Realism, I would ask how you're using the term -- in
contrast to what. Solipsism? Idealism? Relativism? Subjectivism?
Realism is a very slippery term, you know. But if you mean to
suggest that Wittgenstein contended or believed that there is
reason to doubt the existence of an external world independent of
our knowledge or awareness of it, I'd like to see evidence to
support that view.
Finally -- since I'm sure we've lost everyone else on this thread
-- I might note that saying Wittgenstein reduced analytic
philosophy to linguistics is rather like saying that Kant reduced
it to psychology. True, but only in a glib sort of way that runs a
very high risk of missing the whole point.
|7.16.06 @ 1:29AM|#
It's all pops and buzzes over here, Ridge.
(But a 'pro-liberty' movie that makes libetarians look like
souless, humorless, elitist bots.... Yeah, that will be good for
liberty)
|7.16.06 @ 10:59AM|#
You did not just say 'big whoop' to one of the key observations
in ethics in the entire history of thought.
I'll have to brush up on Wit. I did in fact come away with the
impression that he couldn't get at realism in the objective
independent reality way.
I submit that empiricism qua scientific method goes hand in hand
with philosophical empiricism. You believe that it functions a the
way to know your outside world.
|7.16.06 @ 12:09PM|#
You did not just say 'big whoop' to one of the key
observations in ethics in the entire history of thought.
Sure I did. But I also called it brilliant. I was only putting it
into perspective. The notion that one cannot deduce what is not
already implicit in one's premises is the argument, isn't
it?
I'll have to brush up on Wit. I did in fact come away with the
impression that he couldn't get at realism in the objective
independent reality way.
Mind you, I don't think W- asserts as a philosophical truth
(whatever the hell that is) that "there exists an objective
independent reality." He would be far more likely to greet such an
assertion with "As opposed to what?" or "Why would you even say
that?" But what I certainly want to contend is that claims that he
ends up believing or that his position leads necessarily to a sort
of radical skepticism, relativism or subjectivism are simply
false.
I submit that empiricism qua scientific method goes hand in
hand with philosophical empiricism.
Sure it does. Problem is that philosophical empiricism tries to
prove too much. I might as easily say philosophical rationalism
goes hand in hand with mathematics or logic.
|7.16.06 @ 8:30PM|#
"Problem is that philosophical empiricism tries to prove too
much."
It is that connection I'm interested in. Humean skepticism was very
much of the form, "well, it's all we've got." If that isn't the
case, what exactly should we use in its stead, and why wouldn't the
alternative approach work to refute scientific claims empirically
derived? Is there something else we should trust as much?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245