• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Ayn....

^^
Hehe, a fellow discordian!

I believe reason is a good slave, but a poor God. I seem to find that pure rationalists just go around in circles with their analyzing, in trying to be objective at all costs only get ecessivey depressing.

..But then I'm also a big Robert Anton Wilson fan..
 
im swinging this back to the fountainhead, i havent read the book in a while but I did see the movie with Gary Cooper playing Roark(good choice).
If you havent seen the movie well its good for a laugh.
First thing that stikes you is the gayness, but its all bondage and it seems like the director was pulling out a masochistic bent.
interesting.
 
tally-ho said:
^^^^

Your'e writing a paper on the fountainhead? cool.
Maybe you could post it up afterwards, That would be interesting :)
Click to expand...

Yes, i would like to post it! (but only it someone reads it :X). However, it seems that i may not post attachments. :\
 
Skywise, I read your paper a while back and you raised some good stuff. I will have to read again for me to make a more worthy comment but im too pissed (drunk) tired and hungry right now to be coherent, but thanks.

PS, was the neitsche connection apart of the question or was that your connection, was good. even symbolically one could read the quarry scene as Zaruthusia's mountain.
 
Okay, how about applying some armchair economics to Ayn Rand?

In the movie "A Beautiful Mind," the main character (John something?) won the Nobel prize for proving that Adam Smith's economic model was flawed, that the good of society is not maximized when everyone does what is best for themselves. Rather, what is best for society is when everyone does what is best for themselves AND for the group.

That was true (if embellished) story and I got the idea that the main character's economic principle was proven.

Now, it seems to me that Objectivism acts like that proof never happened, and seems to presume (as illustrated in Ayn Rand's fiction) that what is best for society is if everyone does what is best for themselves.

If that is correct, is there any point in even debating the validity of objectivism? Isn't it necessary wrong based on the proof that Adam Smith was wrong?

~psychoblast~
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top