In all truth, this post has nothing to do with anything and a lot to do with everything. Really it's just an excuse for me to announce how ecstatic I am that Angelina Jolie has been officially announced for the role of Dagny Taggart in the upcoming film adaptation of Atlas Shrugged.If this book means anything to anyone, and it should, than I'm sure you can understand how perfect this is. Moreover, Brad Pitt has expressed interest in John Galt. But the real question is, who will play Francisco D'Anconia?
Okay, to tie this post into class, in Quiz Show there's a lot of philosophical propositions, questions of money and morality, politics and publicity. Here's some Randian contemplation in what is one of the most brilliant and sadly unrealistic retorts in literature:
"Money is your means of survival. The verdict which you pronounce upon the source of your livelihood is the verdict you pronounce upon your life. If the source is corrupt, you have damned your own existence. Did you get your money by fraud? By pandering to men's vices or men's stupidity? By catering to fools, in the hope of getting more than your ability deserves? By lowering your standards? By doing work you despise for purchasers you scorn? If so, then your money will not give you a moment's or a penny's worth of joy. Then all the things you buy will become, not a tribute to you, but a reproach; not an achievement, but a reminder of shame. Then you'll scream that money is evil. Evil, because it would not pinch-hit for your self-respect? Evil, because it would not let you enjoy your depravity? Is this the root of your hatred of money?
For the full speech on the virtues of money (it's worth it) click here: http://compuball.com/Inquisition/AynRand/danconiaspeech.htm
4 comments:
Isn't Atlas Shrugged the total opposite of Brangelina's personal philosophy? Running around the world snatching up poor foreign children doesn't sound too Objectivist to me. Unless of course they're doing it out of rational self-interest.
I predicted someone would say that.
You answered your own question. It is not inconsistent with objectivism if it is out of rational self-interest or if it increases their personal utility. For instance, if it increases their utility because they believe they can teach their kids their viewpoint (and thus increase the philosophy) that is an act out of rational self interest. An example of the "altruism" that is incorrect is when it decreases their utility but they do it because they believe it is the appropriate social convention to do it. For instance, if they adopt the kids because they believe they socially have to be considered "good people". A very common misconception of rand is that you can't do anything good for other people or do anything altruistic. All she says is that you should do good for others if you believe it is the correct act, not because there is a social convention that prescribes you have to. (an example is mandatory community service).
Plus they are BEAUTIFUL.
First of all, my link on the Mr. A post was off and has been corrected.
Secondly, the question is one of motivation. If Jolie is doing this because her heart screams for her to do this, then it violates Rand's theories. If she is doing it because she believes it benefits her, then it's okay. Janet's right. Where Sam is somewhat right, though, is that Jolie's philosophy extends past her own behavior -- she is a spokesperson encouraging others to put aside their "selfish" natures and help these unfortunates. That's where I think she violates principles of objectivism.
Janet is also right that objectivism does not preclude doing good. In fact. it's about the choice of good or evil, with the elimination of relativism/gray areas. That's what makes Steve Ditko's embracement of this philosophy while still writing super-heroes so fascinating. If you read Mr. A and then go back to Batman, its pretty interesting. And what about Miller's version of Batman? Oh, nevermind. Janet hasn't read it yet. Heh. Heh.
One final comment. I don't know if it's accurate in this thread to lump Pitt and Jolie together -- not if motivation matters.
I obviously wasn't suggesting Angelina was the perfect Dagny because she's a beacon of objectivist behavior, rather that she, as an actress, is what I envisioned Dagny to be- cold, fierce, beautiful. I think Brad Pitt would visually portray John Galt quite perfectly.
As for Miller, I'm too busy being a female and reading Stardust right now.
Post a Comment