libGommi

The entire graphic novel is an attack on objectivism and moral absolutism. Rorschach is essentially an objectivist hero/vigilante living in a subjective world, in which villains are not merely evil but rather have complex motivations and believe themselves to be good (unlike Miss Rand's villains). Because of his overly-simplistic world view and inability to compromise his beliefs, he suffers from madness. When Alan Moore wrote the book, he knew that (EPIC SPOILERS AHEAD) .

There is an interesting discussion attached to the encyclopedia, in which an objectivist is debating a critic: http://dis.4chan.org/read/newpol/1195059362/84- The critic presents thorough and detailed responses to the objectivist's assertions, and it appears as though the objectivist eventually malfunctions, stating merely "take Chomsky and Marx and shove them up your ass, I'm an Objectivist and I won't hear any of this rambling nonsense any longer." Very good points are raised by the critic. You should check the link.

As an extention of my first question, do all private businesses not work for the approval of others? In order to derive profit, businesses must fulfill a demand set by others in society. A productive innovator does not only search internally for inspiration, but must identify what others enjoy and prefer.

I just finished reading the fountainhead, and understand its message of how living for one's own selfish satisfaction enriches the ego which leads to innovation, while living for the approval of others (being selfless or a "second hander") does not compliment the ego. This seems false however, as recieving approval obviously reinforces an ego. My question is, must the ego be exclusively associated with complete selfishness?

Hello. I am unsure how to go about this, though I will begin by saying that I greatly enjoy the novels of Ayn Rand. The ways in which her stories are structured are engaging and entertaining, with good characterization. My friends and I make amateur films based on our original ideas, colloborating to write our own scripts and eventually filming and editing it. Recently I have decided that it would be a great experience to adapt someone else's original screenplay, and who else to approach for this but fans of one of my favorate authors! So, if there are aspiring writers among you, I call upon you to participate in a fun, creative project. As an example of one of my previous works, I present to you 'The Geeks': http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VgLabk-TsU The Geeks is the story of a group of friends who immerse themselves in Geek culture, being the love of games, media, and fiction. The friends include three boys named Jon, Paul, and Swean. Eventually however, one of the friends is negatively influenced by a drug abuser named Agro, causing him to lose his identity. The story represents Geekdom as a positive and virtuous way of life, while condemning drug use and the "raver" trend as regressive and wrong. By the end of the movie, the main character regains his Geek identity with the help of his friends, and happily continues his life. The plot can be perceived as objective, and we hope to inspire you! From this video our acting limitations are quite obvious, so please take this into consideration. If you choose to write a screenplay, the maximum cast is 10 people, all of which are males, and the plot must be about teenagers. It is also preferable that the movie is relatively short. So, if you enjoyed our work and would like to see your own vision come to life, offer a short synopsis for a potential story, and we would be happy to adapt it, giving you credit.

Hello. What are the objectivist views on these issues? 1. Employees of the public sector. If a person is employed by the government to administer some sevice, truly valuing and enjoying their career, do you respect them dispite the source of their operations being money extracted from the private sector? If, as an example, a teacher at a public high school or a public social worker derives personal fulfillment from their work, while efficiently providing a service, should their acts be condemned on moral principal? 2. Unions It is expressed that the most undeserving and repulsive members of society are the unproductive citizens who 'leach off' of other people's efforts. How do you regard unionized laborers however, who are clearly productive, though whose economic views you disagree with? 3. Humility As a materialist, Ayn Rand felt that valuable objects were to be cherished by productive citizens. These may include expensive cars, large houses, jewels, high-tech gadgetry, ect. This view is one that people should be encouraged to enjoy and display their wealth, as it reveals their accomplishments, and the objects are able to convey a sense of love or value. If a man gives his wife a grand piece of expensive jewelery, it is a strong measure of value. What is your opinion of those that prefer to live more humbly though, considering your profound view of expensive commodities.

Great info, thanks. This game looks great. The environments are very original and interesting.

Considering there is no part of the site dedicated to videogames (to my understanding), this is the most appropriate section I could find. May the moderators move this topic if they feel it necessary. Anyhow, there is a videogame being developed called bioshock, and I believe it is inspired by Ayn Rand. Tell me what you think. The plot of the game occurrs during the 1930's. The nation's most intelligent and innovative people have abandoned society to escape government restrictions and the threat of war, forming their own city beneath the ocean called 'Rapture'. The city of rapture is designed to look like an old New York, art deco style area. As the citizens produce, and conduct their scientific experiments, they eventually become mutated in the process, and the city is ruined. The main character is then sent into this now destroyed city, where he confronts the various inhabitants. The premise seems to be reminiscient of Atlas Shrugged, with the productive people forming their own 'Atlas' society. And of course, rapture is under the water, which is consistent with Rand's analogy of Atlantis. [Moved to Video Games sub-forum. sN]

Thank you for your responses.

It is obvious that Obvjectivism is opposed to religion or anything alluding to spirituality, which I entirely support, as they are indeed based on irrational premises. What is your opinion on Mythology and folk tales however? Do do believe myths reflect primitive superstitions, or do you respect them on some level? Bear in mind that myths can represent human creativity, and are designed to convey a message or advice.

Well, if you're now mentioning the existence and significance different perspectives, you have just contradicted the meaning of objectivism. The fact that there are different perspectives makes reality subjective to an individual's interpretation. Objectivism is absolute, because "A is A", and as you have clearly stated, reality is not absolute. Thus, reality cannot be objective. Do you see logical inconsistency of Objectivism?

I have discovered a fundamental contradiction in the Objectivist view of ethics, and thus a flaw in the basis of the philosophy. Ayn Rands states that: "An organism's life is its standard of value. That which furthers its life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil (The Virtue of Selfishness, pg. 17)". What this implies is that anything which is truly beneficial to an individual, sustaining and advancing their life, is morally good by nature. If this principal applies to the entire Universe, let us examine it in the context of animals as an example. One creature kills another for sustenance, being a necessary process among organisms. While one creature surely benefits, the other's life ends. If there is only one objective set of ethics which applies to all organisms, than something which benefits one organism must have the same effect on all others. This of course is not the reality. This occurrence is more interesting and complex with humans. Let's presume that an employer fires his employees so as to increase profits, which sustains the empployer's life by allowing the company to exist and be successful in the market. The effect this may have on the fired employee can be very negative, resulting in poverty, depression and insecurities, and is thus by the objectivist perspective ethically 'evil'. Here, a large contradiction appears, and Ayn Rand states that no rational philosophies can contain contradictions.

Is my claim contradictory? Citizens and the private sector are coerced into helping other people, thus they do not make the mental decision to do so. Because of this, they may still have the will to work for their own benefit, while factors beyong their control create a social society. You assume that Socialism alters our minds, destroying the human spirit and creativity, however this is not necessarily true.

Let me restate that I do appreciate Ayn Rand's vision of mankind, though the exploitation brought upon by the Capitalist system is worrying. I do not believe that people should produce for the benefit of others, as this serves as a weak incentive for them to work. In fact, it would be best if they have their own personal gain as their motive. Despite a worker's ambition though, the competitive market of a free society would innevitably cause workers to be paid lower wages, because private businesses must maximize profits in order to compete. Because of this, the government should protect workers from this exploitation, so as they can truly enjoy the fruits of their labor, and live the happay and secure lives that they rightfully dserve. The government would do this by heavily taxing the private sector, making the market less competitive, and thus creating a safer working environment.

So this is my first post here, and I have some thoughts I would like people to address. First, I should state that despite my political beliefs being at odds with and opposed to the objectivist view, I do have some level of respect for this philosophy. I first discovered Ayn Rand on another forum, where someone mentioned Atlas Shrugged as a critical response to Socialism. This got me curious, and influenced me to read the novel. The ideas presented within the book were both optimistic and inspiring. The central characters of course represent the objectivist view of the ideal human, being one that is productive, virtuous, and rational. Because the characters have such values, they are shown as being morally superior to the other irrational characters of the story. With the government gaining more control over society however, limits are being placed on the extent to which people can produce. Ayn Rand explains that a decline in production would result in society returning to a primitive age, thus destroying progress, and harming humanity. Ultimately, the novel dramically changed my perspective, as I identify a comparison of the events in the story to those of real life. Ayn Rand is naive however, due to many reasons. In Atlas Shrugged, the setting depicted is one where "People's States" are being established throughout the world, being socialist systems. This, she explains, causes people to starve, relying on aid from America (as America is the last productive haven on Earth). It is due to a decline in production that people cannot acquire necessities to survive, thus the basis for her argument is clear. I believe though that even within a Socialist society, there would in fact be enough production for people to be able to sustain themselves. It is only through production that people can be employed, and employment is a requirement within any ideology. If there is any level of production at all it brings innovation, thus any form of employment, regardless of how competitive the market is, creates progress, and therefore prevents us from becoming primitive beings. Ayn Rand also states that people can only produce happily and creatively in an environment where the government excersizes minimal control over the private sector and citizens. Because the conditions in Atlas Shrugged are quite the opposite, workers feel discouraged from working, so they abandon society. Why is it though that workers cannot feel virtuous within a Socialist system? Surely they are producing, supplying a demand and being rewarded. As well, throughout history, workers have only expressed contemt towards their employment situation if the government fails to protect them, not Ayn Rand's proposition of workers being too controlled. What would the Objectivist response be of exploitation caused by Capitalism? So Objectivism seems like an effective personal philosophy to base your life on, encouraging productive work and rationality. As the basis for a political system however, it would merely establish a libertarian society, which in my opinion provides no security.