Sabre Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 Looking at reviews for the Atlas Shrugged film, and they seem to say it's pretty bad. Fair enough. However, the reviews I read seemed more like anti-objectivism rants. Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deploy Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 I too hate when reviewers take one little philosophy they don't like and say the thing their reviewing is horrible. For example, G4 gave Metroid: Other M a low score because it "supported" sexism (which it didn't at the slightest) It wouldn't have been as bad if they had more legit reasons for the score. But I'm not really sure what Objectivism is so I can't say in that department lol :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkyway64 Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 For example, G4 gave Metroid: Other M a low score because it "supported" sexism (which it didn't at the slightest) I hate when this sort of things happen. I mean Other M has plenty of actual legit things to rant about and rate the game low for, bullshit claims of sexism isn't one of them. Also how can objectivism even be debated? It's, well, objective. Haters are just babies who wish said objective thing was different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sluggsnipa Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 anti-objectivism rants Well,I have no Idea what movie you're talking about,but some Russian guy started it...maybe they have thing against Soviets? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thu'um Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 people don't like to go any were with things Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabre Posted April 21, 2011 Author Share Posted April 21, 2011 To put it simply in a way that can easily understood (the full thing is a bit more complex) would be to say "Greed is good." Objectivism is basicly the idea that looking out for number 1 is the best stratagy for happiness and prosperity. The wikipedia page has more details. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_%28Ayn_Rand%29 The story (and thus I assume the film) is a framing device for that belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DZComposer Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 Because the philosophy is, by nature, counter to the principles of fairness. Ayn Rand believed that anything you did for yourself, even killing innocent people, was just because, you know, greed is good. Before you think I am making an exaggerated claim, look-up Rand's obsession with William Edward Hickman, who killed a child and dismembered her before sewing her body partially back together in order to get ransom money. She seriously thought he was the ideal person because he didn't let anything stop him from doing what he wanted. Ayn Rand's fantasies aside, the problem with "greed-is-good" is that greed leads to oppression and authoritarianism. This is shown repeatedly throughout history, but you don't even need a history book to see this one, just some powers of observation (google "human trafficking"). Plus, in a time where unemployment is over 10%, and it is quite obvious that the rich are living-it-up when the poor and middle-classes are suffering greatly, a movie glorifying the behavior of the rich isn't likely to fare too well. I personally think Rand was just butt-hurt that her rich family's fortune was lost in the Bolshevik Revolution (when Russia became the USSR), and she felt that she had to be as much of a polar-opposite of a communist as possible. Ironically, it would be Stalin's greed and lust-for-power that completely torpedoed the chance for real communism in the USSR (Marx did not like totalitarianism, he felt that Communism was actually the most democratic economic system). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fox1235 Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 On 5/3/2011 at 11:27 AM, DZComposer said: [Deleted] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deploy Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 Totally agree with you there. Communism wasn't meant to be that way, I know people who claim to be "true" Communists. Even wikipedia says that the Soviets created their own system of government.. Personally I consider myself a libertarian socialist although people like to say I'm an anarchist Why wold you go for Socialism if history clearly shows that it just doesn't work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fox1235 Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 On 5/3/2011 at 5:52 PM, Deploy said: [Deleted] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deploy Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 It works in smaller countries. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_Army_of_National_Liberation I'm not talking about regular socialism, I'm talking about libertarian socialism. Theres a difference. Alright then. I'm not huge into government anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts