The OFFICIAL Unofficial Achewood Message Board
Trivial Pursuits => Arts & Entertainment => Topic started by: Pedro Picasso on May 06, 2008, 09:25:44 pm
-
I wasn't going to hold off on this until I actually finished Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand, but it came up in the Iron Man thread (of all places), and I'll go ahead and ask it. What the HELL, people?
I'm listening to this in audio book form. It's > 50 hours. It must be pretty entertaining because I'm 25 hours in and not bored yet. I do roll my eyes a lot, and certain sections are PAINFUL to listen to, but it's not boring. It's not unredeeming in every way. There are some cool ideas in there. Still: It is bad fiction and bad philosophy.
Bad fiction: Flat characters who are either good guys or bad guys. The good guys have every good grace of mankind, and some superhuman characteristics. The bad guys have everything that is wrong with the world in them and nothing good. They are subhuman. They do not act like real human beings. Human beings cannot act that way unless they are BROKEN by something that isn't described in the book.
Self-interest is man's highest ideal.
Lady, I think I found your problem. This is the most believable lie in history. It is the lie that you desperately want to believe. I'll attack it this way: the characters in the book do not hold this principle, though they spout it. Their actions betray a belief that justice is the highest ideal. But they seem to think justice flows naturally from mutual self-interest, so they take it for granted. That is stinking thinking. The bad guy philosophy in the book is demonstrably worse, but fortunately they aren't the only games in town.
I would LOVE to have a discussion about the merits and flaws in the fiction and philosophy in Atlas Shrugged. I'm half-way through it, so I can't do so entirely competently just yet. ...Unless she just repeats herself a thousand more times in the second half.
Did you notice she totally wrote herself in as the giraffewife in the gulch?
-
To be fair: the other dystopian fiction of the time also lacked characters of much depth, and the fact that capitalism is better than communism did need some pointing out by someone who is not a politician.
-
I can't ever say youre wrong about the characters. I am one of Rand's biggest fans (I have t-shirts and guinea pigs to demonstrate this) and even I can't stand to watch The Fountainhead movie they made. The only way to digest this stuff as literature is to think of her characters as just mouthpieces and simplified demonstrations of what she writes her essays. If you're looking for some masterpiece of fictional literature, this isn't it.
The philosophy on the other hand takes some consideration. She uses words like selgiraffeness in ways most people do not. Her idea that good in the world comes from people acting in their own self interest is maybe better explained by an Adam Smith quote Ive committed to memory the same way people memorize bible verses: It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages."
-
If anyone wants to read Ayn Rand, without actually plowing through thousands of pages, I recommend The Ayn Rand Reader, its a greenish color paperback with like a readers digest version of her works.
-
That book could have redeemed itself so much for me if James Taggart's fiance was treated better (Cheryl wiki tells me her name is), she and Hank Rearden (and to a lesser extent Eddie) are the most compelling characters in there for me because they are conflicted and trying to straddle two worlds rather than being a boring caricature. When the characters I can identify with get totally shafted it leaves a bit of a bad taste.
-
...Unless she just repeats herself a thousand more times in the second half.
Tee hee... I won't tell him if nobody else does either...
-
Pedro posted in the Iron Man thread:
For someone who worships individual excellence, Ayn Rand sure is lousy at her chosen vocation. Agree or disagree with her philosophy, there's no denying that she is one crappy novelist.
I just finished a section where a composer explains that feelings have little place in the creation of art and that ideas and intellectual willpower are what create great works of art. He says that artists who create based what they feel instead of what they think are basically the equivalent of human slugs. Dropping this essay in the middle of your novel = high art.
There you go. Discuss it here.
-
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages."
This is only part of the story. The other part involves what you do when no one is looking. You don't steal from the butcher while he's looking because he'll cut you. Your self-love prevents it. You don't steal from the butcher even when you are sure you won't get caught because you respect the butcher and you respect justice. Many people do steal, but if everybody stole when they couldn't get caught, our society wouldn't work. Self-love, reverence for justice, and respect for fellows are all necessary to keep society moving.
Instead of just attacking your philosophy, I should put myself out there. I am a Christian. I was raised Catholic and have joined the Lutheran Church. The book I read before starting Shruggy was Orthodoxy by G.K. Chesterton. I thought it was great. He attacks the same kind of "there is no such thing as moral rectitude" and "suicide is the highest expression of the mind" stuff that Rand is against, but where she thinks the physical world is self-explanatory, he points out it's not.
"Love your neighbor as yourself" implies that you already love yourself. It doesn't say watch out for your neighbor like you watch out for yourself. You have to trust your neighbor to do most of that. But if she's in a bad way, you don't leave her in a ditch. And you don't pull her out because of pity (which is a form of loathing). You should help her out of compassion. An understanding love that says "I will help you because I love you, but I will not let you take unfair advantage because I love me too."
Most of all, a philosophy based on self-love is doomed to failure because you are not all that great. If you devote your life only to yourself, you will not have much of a life. It leaves nothing to strive for beyond yourself, no room for growth. Even the characters in Atlas Shrugged don't do this, though they say they do.
-
I've noticed that in the Sims 2, when my characters achieve their lifetime aspiration -- usually as elders -- after a certain point they're just pretty much waiting to die. It gets pretty boring.
If they live with their kids and/or grandkids, though, they can help them with their daily lives so that the kids can focus on their aspirations. They can spend quality time with their grandchildren, and teach them important skills that will help them later in life. They can fix things around the house, cook meals, help with the cleaning, and babysit to save the younger adults time and money. They can provide important social support that helps sustain the family. By transcending their ambitions, these sims can create a better and more satisfying (to the player-god) life through helping others than they can through self-centeredness.
Sure, that's a video game, and that's the way I play -- which is different from the way some people play. Some player-gods torture their sims in all kinds of unimaginable ways to laugh at the hilarious results. Some just create a variety of highly attractive sims and watch them make out with each other. But that doesn't mean my particular analogy isn't apt.
-
Sure, that's a video game, and that's the way I play -- which is different from the way some people play. Some player-gods torture their sims in all kinds of unimaginable ways to laugh at the hilarious results. Some just create a variety of highly attractive sims and watch them make out with each other. But that doesn't mean my particular analogy isn't apt.
Oh god, I just realized that the way I play the Sims is PATHOLOGICAL as shit.
like, not quite on the level of my high school girlfriend who had a scrap book of the furniture she wanted for our house when we got married, but...
yeah, no, nothing is that crazy. but I still think it's probably pretty creepy, the way I play the sims.
-
You honestly didn't expect to be able to say that and not have us ask, right?
I mean, that was part one of your post on How Daniel Plays The Sims. I'm certain of it.
-
I mean, I think you can probably guess? I just make endless perfect little young families with a cool house and they both have cool jobs and then they have a baby.
Shortly after the baby I lose interest and start another one. Maybe this time the girl will be a blonde instead of a brunette, or be a doctor instead of a... I forget what other professions there are, it has been a while. The guy is always cool but slightly nerdy.
-
Yeah, but...if you can get through the baby stage, the next generation will have all kinds of Advantages that a newly-minted sim doesn't have...like, for instance, the ability to learn skills early in life, and thus progress through the career tracks faster...and have more time with which to woo a lover...which results in more babies...
I usually just create one sim -- often a female named Eve -- and populate an entire town with her offspring. I marry her off to a compatible townie, and roll a die for the children's aspirations. After a while, the great-grandkids of the original couple are sufficiently genetically removed that I can start inter-marrying them, but I only do that when the population becomes to dense for me to play all the households in the neighborhood. (I have a hard time juggling more than six or seven, even with an elaborate system of note cards to track career progress, skills, abilities, and aspirations.)
Oh, man. Now you know my dirtiest little secret: I am an absolutely hard to the core Sims player. I used to be more so, before Girlface was born, but I'm preoccupied with raising my actual babies most of the time now. It makes me cringe a little that I am so into this game, because it's so (unfairly, IMHO) maligned by self-styled hardcore gamers, but that's a different rant.
The Sims. I like it. That is all.
Damn, I really wish I had time to play right now.
-
yeah, but, see, I don't care about all that other stuff.
I just really enjoy decorating really small houses with cheap furniture, and then saving up to splurge on like a nice stereo or something.
-
Yeah, that's probablywaaaaay healthier than my obsessive style of play.
-
oh, also, I spend ridiculous amounts of time making my people. and yet, as my brother laughingly pointed out, they almost always basically turn out the same.
...apparently I have a thing for thin women with short dark hair and glasses, who knew.
-
I try to recreate people in my own life. Ive made houses with my best friends, my family, my fraternity house, etc. It adds to the entertainment value exponentially.
-
I used to make replicas of people I knew, but it was too unsettling to watch them get old and die.
I wish I were kidding.
-
I have really tried to enjoy The Sims. Really really tried.
But things like doing dishes, cleaning the house, sleeping, taking a dump and a shower or making sure I'm on time for work? Those are the things I play video games to escape.
He says that artists who create based what they feel instead of what they think feel are basically the equivalent of human slugs.
Even accepting that assertion as true, Rand remains a lousy novelist. Whatever your subject matter, two dimensional characters and 100 page wooden soliloquies are the mark of a hack rather an excellent novelist.
I believe it would be possible to write a good novel based upon Rand's ideas. However, she was either incapable of doing so or preferred to produce thinly veiled diatribes.
-
NERD ALERT
When playing Oblivion (RPG/FPS hybrid thingy) I put a lot of effort into making my character 'real'. The awesomely complex face design is great but it's not that, it's just making my character like a normal person. Eat at the right time (eating not needed), get plenty of sleep (sleeping not needed), carry realistic amounts of stuff (which is a big disadvantage), never wear/use items which make me look too conspicuously hero-y.
I must be the only person in the world who buys an RPG in order to try ending up just like everyone else in the world.
Judy is a cog.
-
actually, there are plenty of people who do that. I used to play Neverwinter Nights on a whole server where the idea was to remain in character at all times, it was incredibly hard to get magical weapons or armor (to the point that you'd get realistic "oh my GOSH how did you get that amazing shiny sword!" responses) etc.
It got old after a while, but was pretty fun while it lasted.
-
NERD ALERT
I must be the only person in the world who buys an RPG in order to try ending up just like everyone else in the world.
Sounds like you should get into that Persona game a couple of threads over.
The best face business I've ever seen in a game was NHL 2001. You could import photos, arrange points on them, and what came out was a hockey player with my 8-year-old brother's face, another with my face, another with MOM's face. (The women looked ridiculous.) I had so much fun with that. They took it out in the next year's version. I've not seen it anywhere since. *sigh*
Also Ayn Rand thought we should have stayed on the gold standard. Nuts to that.
-
The fuck you got against the gold standard? You prefer inflation and backless papers of green paper? Fiat currency never survives.
-
The fuck you got against the gold standard? You prefer inflation and backless papers of green paper? Fiat currency never survives.
Thanks for fighting me on this. I know you don't have all the time in the world to lecture. But I think the gold standard is a pretty obviously bad idea at this point, and if you can beat the crap out of me on this issue, I would love to see your argument. I am not uttering sarcasm.
0. The gold standard leads to a lack of liquidity/deflation which is also bad for the economy.
1. "Fiat currency never survives." Nothing ever survives. (i.e. In the long run, we're all dead.)
2. BUT backless strapless steel-belted radial green has been part of our economy since the Federal Reserve Bank Notes of 1933. We've had a pretty good 70 years, all things considered.
3. The full faith and credit of the United States of America is -- perhaps -- not as solid as gold, but it has been and will continue to be more than adequate.
4. Because of loans on top of loans, an economic system based on gold isn't that secure in the first place.
5. Is it possible that a huge deposit of gold could be found/released/alchemated that would flood the market and cause inflation? I know this is possible/imminent with diamonds.
6. Isn't our faith in gold as a standard of value based on everybody else thinking it's of value, and not on its actual usefulness? Isn't the same said of the green papers? You can't make your own gold with a photocopier, but its rarity doesn't immediately translate into value.
These have been numbered to make it easier for you to knock them down in turn.
I Am Not Uttering Sarcasm --> i-anus?
-
6. Isn't our faith in gold as a standard of value based on everybody else thinking it's of value, and not on its actual usefulness?
We talked about this somewhere else lately. I think I remarked that I didn't see why gold would be better to own when civilization collapsed. I'd much rather have a bunch of bags of rice. Or if I had to pick some kind of metal, at least one that could be made into useful objects - you can't make cooking pots out of gold, can you?
So yeah, gold seems like just as irrational a choice as pieces of green paper if not worse - at least I could burn the green paper to cook the rice with.
-
My understanding is that gold is just irrational but it is desirable in as much as you can't just make more of it when you want as you can with paper money. There is still the problem of stockpiles being held by individuals or entities of course.
I don't necessarily have an opinion either way.
-
Sure, you can't make more gold, but if it's no use to begin with why would you want even more?
It's also not all that easy to make more rice. It takes at least a few months and you could starve by then.
-
Maybe it's more practical to use something inherently worthless to represent value? Like, if you used rice then it's value might be warped depending on how hungry you are etc. money is only ever worth money, it's value varies but $5 for me will buy the same as $5 for you.
Even then that argument seems a bit flawed.
-
Maybe it's more practical to use something inherently worthless to represent value? Like, if you used rice then it's value might be warped depending on how hungry you are etc. money is only ever worth money, it's value varies but $5 for me will buy the same as $5 for you.
Even then that argument seems a bit flawed.
Well, yes, that's the point of currency vs. barter.
All currency is ultimately fiat currency. The sense in which gold is not a fiat currency is that it's a barter good - but it's one with no inherent value.
-
I think I'm onto this.
Gold cannot be created or found in huge quantities (though people have been working on this for millenia), so scarcity is preserved.
Gold cannot be destroyed through conventional means, so radical deflation is unlikely.
The folks who are preparing for world economic collapse are stockpiling gold and guns, thus ensuring gold will be the de facto currency.
People have considered gold valuable for so long, it would be a difficult habit to break. (like Imperial units and not-speaking-Esperanto)
Gold-backed currency is stronger because it will survive world economic collapse.
BUT you'd still have to trust the government that's storing the gold to honor the currency. It's still based on trust in the nation, so I'm having trouble seeing as truly the better deal.
edit: italic bleeding
-
Well that brings us to one of the spin offs of full bodied currency which is currency competition. We use banks and trust them to hold on to our money in the same way we would use currency producers or warehouse receipt issuers. The discussion goes to a whole other planet when we start talking about apocalyptic scenarios. Instead what Im talking about here is that the government lifts its monopoly on currency production. A newly issued private currency would operate like any other currency, except it would be exchangeable for a store of wealth and protect its value.
Imagine if you will a credit card from A-CAP'S TRUST. Now as long as ACT paid vendors in their preferred currency (just like we do now), the ACT currency would float around the market. ACT makes its money by speculating in currency (because as other currencies of the world inflate around it, the bet is practically guaranteed), seigniorage, and transaction fees.
As for a nationalized full bodied currency - that is more a romantic idea where government can't devalue my currency, and therefore steal my wealth, as I hold it in my hand or have it in a bank. Inflation is one of the greatest robberies and everyone seems to look the other way. Practically, however, we are too far entrenched in a government literally funded by hopes, dreams, and promises that to say "we actually have to have something to back it up" at this point would collapse the financial debt structure.
It would obviously take a lot more to convince people as smart as you all, Im just sketching broad strokes.
-
Aren't you supposed to be a human skin container for Tequila by now?
I thought he already was, when I read that post.
(The setup was so obvious, somebody had to say it.)
-
People have considered gold valuable for so long, it would be a difficult habit to break. (like Imperial units and not-speaking-Esperanto)
Dude, while I am (in theory) all for an international auxiliary language, there are plenty of good reasons why Esperanto isn't the one (http://www.xibalba.demon.co.uk/jbr/ranto/).
-
how can we invent a language when we have trouble figuring out the rules for the ones we already have?
this seems like a prescriptivist plot to make a simple language where the rules always apply.
-
how can we invent a language when we have trouble figuring out the rules for the ones we already have?
this seems like a prescriptivist plot to make a simple language where the rules always apply.
Li koni too multa!
-
A newly issued private currency would operate like any other currency, except it would be exchangeable for a store of wealth and protect its value.
Imagine if you will a credit card from A-CAP'S TRUST. Now as long as ACT paid vendors in their preferred currency (just like we do now), the ACT currency would float around the market. ACT makes its money by speculating in currency (because as other currencies of the world inflate around it, the bet is practically guaranteed), seigniorage, and transaction fees.
I like your private currency idea. Is this illegal? It seems like you could do this right now. I used to have an eGold account and a pepperCoin account. When eGold folded, I sold my gold and got a check for $20 based on my $10 investment and the fact that gold prices went nuts after the eleventh of September 2001. The pepperCoin business didn't shake out at all because it was based on the fact that people would go to a lot of effort for the ability to pay each other in 5 cent increments. But pepperCoin was a truly private currency that could be converted to other kinds of currency. Paypal survives, but they handle things in existing currencies. Anyway, I'd totally snatch up some ACT script were it available.
As for a nationalized full bodied currency - that is more a romantic idea where government can't devalue my currency, and therefore steal my wealth, as I hold it in my hand or have it in a bank.
It is my understanding that the US Government doesn't print more currency than is physically destroyed in a given year. Am I wrong on this?
Inflation is one of the greatest robberies and everyone seems to look the other way. Practically, however, we are too far entrenched in a government literally funded by hopes, dreams, and promises that to say "we actually have to have something to back it up" at this point would collapse the financial debt structure.
Inflation is enabled by an increasing money supply which is fed not by printing more money, but by increased lending. When the Fed drops interest rates, more people/banks borrow money and then lend it out to multiple people thereby 'creating' more liquid cash. This doesn't have to do with printing money. Our protections against it are to raise interest rates and to more strictly regulate banks as to how much money they have to keep on hand in relation to how much has been deposited.
It would obviously take a lot more to convince people as smart as you all, Im just sketching broad strokes.
I appreciate your posting about this. Your ideas are interesting. I suppose if I really wanted to take a detailed beating on this, I would sign up at forums.aynrandfans.com or somesuch though they might lack the civility you have. Perhaps I'll do that.
-
It is my understanding that the US Government doesn't print more currency than is physically destroyed in a given year. Am I wrong on this?
*weeps*
http://www.hithimagain.com/2008/01/19/bush-congress-fed-all-hapless-to-stimulate-economy/ (http://www.hithimagain.com/2008/01/19/bush-congress-fed-all-hapless-to-stimulate-economy/)
It's a terribly biased editorial, but the basic facts presented are correct, even if you disagree with their interpretation.
Pedro, ask my dad next time you see him about the three ways monetary policy can influence the economy. He'll tell you more than you want to know, I'm sure. Just because they prefer to use interest rates to manipulate the economy most of the time doesn't mean that they can't, won't, or don't print more money than is required to replace that which is destroyed.
-
Pedro, ask my dad next time you see him about the three ways monetary policy can influence the economy.
I am not in the habit of exposing my absolute ignorance to people who are not imaginary-friends-on-the-internet.
-
As.
If.
-
Should we just leave you two alone for a minute?
-
Dude, remember what happened *last* time we were alone together?
(http://lh6.ggpht.com/jldunston/SCnq68LNz6I/AAAAAAAABEo/CuSuJMKBq3s/s400/DSC00708.JPG)
-
Dude, remember what happened *last* time we were alone together?
(http://lh6.ggpht.com/jldunston/SCnq68LNz6I/AAAAAAAABEo/CuSuJMKBq3s/s400/DSC00708.JPG)
Point.
-
you haven't been alone together since then? so sad. I want to say that I will hug you, but maybe instead I will leave for a few minutes or an hour.
-
The child is disturbed by the camera, or perhaps something happening behind the camera.
-
Man, even she looks kind of freaked out by the whole thing, like 'Damn guys, don't leave 'em alone again... look what happened!'