these people need some homeless dude to dry fuck them up the ass until they bleed all over their satin dresses. Who would develop a movie based on the writings of some russian hag who died before the internet came along. (Which unveils the true nature of humans.) The book was the worst and- paradoxically subjective- garbage right behind Mein Kompf in it's fail factor. I wasted a couple weeks of my life chugging through 1,250 pages just like some militant capitalist whale taking a run in bronx.
@vtrestrail OH HELL no! Don't you DARE ride on my popularity. That piece of trash you guys call a movie is an unmitigated disaster and it is an embarrassment to objectivists everywhere. Don't you dare post here again, you bloody second handers with your bargain-bin cast and idiotic director.
Yeah, uh... what? Aristotle was the first to say something along the lines of "existence exists," and was the first to discuss the law of identity: a = a
It had to do with his refuting, successfully I might add, of the Platonic forms. I find it interesting that Plato is much more widely read in schools and in college, while his student, Aristotle corrected much of his ideas and remains comparatively less popular. Leibniz the first? Breathtakingly wrong on that one.
@Rockhorns76 Ever notice how nihilists, though many of them claim to also be anarchists (or in-league with anarchists), always seem to advocate big government -- specifically, global government. Plato's concept of a "republic" was really the opposite of a true republic -- more of a police state. Socialists and fascists alike cling to the belief that civilization can't exist without the state. Even Aristotle believed that man only behaves as a beast in the absense of the state.
@moosatious I honestly don't know what weed you're smoking, but I want none of it. As far as Leibniz being the first formulator? Give me a break. Pick up Book VII of Aristotle's Metaphysics next time you pass through earth again on your rainbow trip to Whackdoodle. It might enlighten you.
So who is 'stupid', the people who for centuries refused to admit the axiomatic nature of existence, or the person who finally pointed it out??
@Merryjest Nobody refused to admit any axiomatic nature of existence lol. "Existence exists" is a tautology that everyone knows intuitively, regardless of anyone having to point it out. And it leads to no philosophically interesting conclusions for that reason. As many philosophers showed, foremost Descartes, the only existence you can have knowledge of is your own. Saying "existence exists" is like saying "apples are apples," it tells you nothing substantive. .
@dbmcmillan You just contradicted yourself by saying that E=E was a tautology... but then say "the only existence you can have knowledge of is your own." So outside of your own existence, you have no knowledge that anything else exists? So, in that framework, how is affirming the existence of everything else not an uninteresting point?
@ merryjest, you're suggesting that one needs to study the doctrines of others to appear 'literate' or at least 'semi-knowledgeable', which downplays the role of the self. SECOND HANDER LOVER! *throws merryjest and his guitar out of the moving van and proceeds to mac on Justice*
Yeah, crazy me, I usually think that if you are trying to argue against something, you should do it from a position of knowledge. Like I said, silly, silly me. As long as we have you as the posterboy for the other approach, you'll be making my job much easier. Good job, mate!
From the book: "When a shock raced through his chest, the gold-copper strands of his hair flew with the jerking of his head, as if waving in a gust of wind, beating against his face, across his eyes."
Known fact: Ayn Rand is a Romantic, meaning good guys are good, bad guys are bad, no middle ground (with the exception of Gail Wynand, who durr hurr'd in life)
Known fact: Ad Hominem statements invalidate your argument and make you look like a total douche.
Villainroe- you obviously don't get the message, (Im saying that because of your analysis, not your opinion).
Look up Atlas shrugged: From Fact to Fiction in 52 Years to see how it pertains to today, becefore you try to make over-simplified slippery slope arguments to refute it.
The core premise of Rand's book -- that a strike by CEOs brings the world to its knees -- is laughable. Was Rand talking about people like Rick Wagoner, Ken Lay, Charles Prince, Dick Fuld, Angelo Mozilo, Bernie Ebbers, and Al Dunlap? It was the greed and dishonesty of these and thousands of other of Rand's "elite" that made the US the mess that it is.
Read the book before you open your mouth and show how little you know about what you are attempting to ridicule.
What is the difference between two CEOS, James Taggart and Henry Rearden, in Atlas Shrugged? Why is one a villain and the other one a hero? When you inform yourself in the matter then you'll know the answer to your question. Research before ridicule, otherwise all you do is replicate the braying of other donkeys without doing your own thinking.
I do my own thinking, thanks. It has been years since I read Atlas and many more since I read The Fountainhead. The problem with your Taggart and Rearden comment is that they are fictional characters. They never existed. Of course, we like Rearden and dislike Taggart. But what would be a comparison in the real world? Who do you see as Taggart and who as Rearden? How do we really measure success?
Doesn't sound like you do your own thinking. You've only read the *fiction*, and yet you are making judgments of a philosophy. Have you ever read the non-fiction? introduction to its epistemology? The discussion of objectivist ethics in "Virtue of Selfishness" and Tara Smith's "Normative Ethics"?
All of the questions you are asking are discussed in these books, and more. Do you realize how poor you come accross?
Follow my advice: Get at least that book I mentioned which has a condensed but very comprehensive outtline of the philosophy as *study*, not as portrayed in fiction. AS and TF are works that have the philosophy as implicit, they are not meant to be didactic material and so they do not contain every aspect of the philosophy in an explicit manner. They are an adequate introduction, but if you read no more than that you really have very little.
So, you have a choice here: Buying at least that *one* book and giving it a read so that you can argue from at least a semi-knowledgeable position, or two: Continue to shoot off your mouth on a subject you are barely literate in, which would make you no different than Anne Coulter or Michael Moore. Your choice, but if you choose the second I'll not approve any more of your comments, as it would be a waste of time.
Nice trailer. Things I'd like to note, since Atlas Shrugged was set in an era of either 30s, 40s, or 50s culture, the music should have been a little powerful instead of electric. Oh, yes, the accents too. Try imitating how Andrew Ryan from Bioshock speaks. Other than that, the trailer's awesome.
Recommendation to Lionhead Studios: The game should've had more Art Deco sets to give a Randian feel! Wish there'd be some mods for Art Deco cityscapes. T_T
the vid is just that ,,a video,,,,but the comments are the REASON I went on a vacation.....we can not sway people away from their desire and drag them to reason...that has always been one of the errors in our reasoning. Where are you, Dagny? Scratch a $ sign on the compass at Horton Plaza and I will be there. Never forget.
It shocks me that the ideas of a woman so divorced from human reality have taken such hold simply because they justify the selfishness and self righteousness that we all feel
Objectivism, Egoism of course these are valid but they fail to take into account what makes the accumulation of human knowledge possible, the desire to learn, the desire to teach, these are not things which have been imposed on us by our society, they are what have allowed us to rise above the other primates and rule
And by that statement you prove you have not only not read anything by Ayn Rand, but that you don't even know the philosophy at all. The desire to learn is one of the things most respected in the philosophy, under the virtue of Rationality.
If I were you, I'd make sure I know something before I open my mouth and make a fool of myself by repeating what everybody else says about Rand without actually doing the reading yourself.
The desire to learn sure, but the desire to teach is a different matter, you can think what you like about my ignorance, however the desire to teach is an altruistic position which flies in the face of the morality which Rand proposes
If competition is in your best interest (for without it you cannot truly refine yourself), then how can the desire to ensure that the world remain full of ideas and knowledge be altruistic? It would only be altruistic if you did not live in the world at all- so that the knowledge that is spread and improved cannot possibly benefit you at all.
The benefits of competition is one of the beautiful myths of capitalism, all the truly great achievements of mankind have been accomplished through collaboration
Go ask Beethoven who co-wrote his 9th symphony for him. Don't waste my time any further. You fear competition because you know you are simply a mediocre who wants to let others see to your survival.
As you requested I will not waste your time any further, except to say that my PhD and multiple patents beg to differ with your characterization of me as a moron, however my ego does not require me take full credit for this work, I realize and am proud of the fact that my accomplishments could not have been made without the collaboration and insights of the scientific community
If you had a PHD and were as proud of it as you pretend to be, you wouldn't seek to validate it by throwing it in my face as some sort of childish gauntlet ("look at me! I have diploma! Ergo I'm special!")
Perhaps your lack of self-esteem comes precisely from the fact that you don't claim anything for yourself, so therefore at least you want to hold on to the honor of having a piece of paper. What good does it do you when you don't have the cojones to claim credit for anything?
I love teaching people. I love watching them gain strength. I love that they can help me with what they learn. I love that they expand in ways I cannot and I can then learn from the frontiers they cross. I I I love it. I I I love it. For me.
Did Beethoven build his own piano? Feed himself? Make his own clothes? Build his own house? Teach himself music? Of course not. Rand's line of argument doesn't make sense.
You are starting from the premise that man must re-invent the wheel every single time. If you KNEW anything about the philosophy you are trying to ridicule, you'd know that knowledge is not considered a finite resource.That the most active principle is the trader principle: Individual A trades with Individual B for something of value WITH something of value (money, tutoring, odds and ends). Beethoven obtained his pianos with the money he obtained from trading his music with those who valued it.
- he studied with Haydn and other masters in a voluntary exchange. He bought his clothes from traders who created those goods, and the exchange was a voluntary one. Your error is assuming that Objectivism equals a cynical exploitative attitude towards the rest of the world. Why don't you do yourself a favor and buy "Objectivism in one lesson" on Amazon? Otherwise I'm afraid you'll keep snarking without any actual knowledge. At least KNOW what you critique firsthand. Otherwise you'd be a parrot
if youtube were not compeating with other sites for ad money (from those pop up ad's powered by google on the videos and others) you would not have this forum or this video to watch. If computer companies werent compeating to sell you your next computer... you wouldnt have the video card in your computer... if internet companies werent compeating youd still be using a 4k dial up modem.. if you werent compeating with others on this website, there would be no intellectual discourse
incek: Teaching could easially be one of the most selfish of enterprises imaginable.
What narcicist would not jump at the chance to stand in front of a crowd of adoring fans hanging on every word they say because it is importaint to the crowd that they listen to whatever you the narcicist has to say..
Teaching could be a most selfish rush - opposit of altruism.
If were to enjoy teaching, it was something i loved to do, something i did because i enjoyed HELPING others learn... especially people who i liked... then it is my choice to do so. I am not teaching because even tho i dont want to, i see the value in other people education, so i, at the expense of my happiness teach them... i am teaching to bennifit myself while others are bennifitting too
Rand doesnt say its bad to help people, only bad to forget yourself out of duty to others.
That's "A is A", it's the law of identity: A thing cannot be anything other than itself, it has definable attributes and characteristics. Metaphysically it implies we exist in a universe that can be known and of which we are aware, but which is not tied to our awareness to exist.
wonderful book. god i wish i lived in a country/world based on these principles. it would be a planet of advanced, independent, self sufficient, superbeings.
but no, im stuck in 21st america, steadily consumed by begging, looting, welfare loving socialists and a big govt ready to shackle everyone.
i think it would be so cool to make a movie but this book is very long and they'd have to get everything just right or they wouldn't do the book justice. i don't think the directors could pull it off in a timely matter (1-2 hrs). this movie would have to be hours long. but surprisingly i wouldn't mind lol as long as they get everything right.
from what i hear a few weeks ago at slash film, is that charlize theron was in talks to make atlas shrugged , this is were it gets hazy for me. but i believe that it would be a mini series or something like that assuming it ever gets made
I thoroughly enjoyed reading your comment. you seem to have done lot of research or studied objectivism. where can get the ' objectivism ethics'. is there a website?thanks
The best place to look is the Ayn Rand Bookstore, which has her books. I suggest starting with "Philosophy: Who needs it?" then moving on to "The Virtue of Selfishness", "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" all by Ayn Rand, and then "Viable Values" by Tara Smith.
No, I do not teach- I have other things on my mind at this point.
A word on power, and those who seek it. Those who cannot produce seek power over those who do. This has been true since the first cavemen went on the hunt, while weaker men stayed behind and collected the masses. This is the basis of all religion and political structures. Todays "leaders" are the worst yet, they don't even bother to pretend anymore. Rep.,Dem,Lib, the are all the same, they are just trying to make you THINK you have a choice. Death by club or nuke is still death.
...cont. Concerning charity, its wonderful if its voluntary, its evil when its forced. I would like to add aline to an old axiom.
"Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day, Teach a man to fish, and he eats for a lifetime. BUT IF A MAN REFUSES TO FISH, THAN HE DESERVES TO STARVE!'
...cont. I'll give you an example, Henry Ford was a brillant industrialist who created the first mass produced automobile. Henry Ford IV, is a medicore heir who is in well over his head. He is the lessour son of greater sires. He lacks his G-G-Great gradfathers ability. There is a very big differance in AQUIRING wealth, and CREATING it. Most corporate leaders only aquire wealth, they often make more when they leave a company, than while employed. Few, if any CEO's actually CREATE anything!
There seems to be alot of mythconceptions about CAPITALISM. In simple terms I'll try to point out some small points. First off, this country has never been truely capitalistic, it was shackled from the very beginning by our well meaning founding fathers. Secondly one condemns capitalism is failing because the premises is unsound. The true reason of the failure is caused by people WITHOUT ability are running the corporations and the government. cont.
hello, Merryjest. I just wanted to ask for your help because i am currently reading this book and I'm having a little trouble fully understanding the concept of John Galt. I am a 10th grade student if that helps in understanding why its so hard to comprehend the book. lol. But please, explain to me the meaning of the concept and philosophy of the novel.
I'll try to break down a 1200 page novel in a few sentences. To never sacrifice the ability of the strong for the need of the weak and to hold one's life as one's ultimate and absolute value would be the themes. "A is A" means that man must be man, but he has a choice to think or not to think, to work or not to work, to have worth or not. I don't think Ayn Rand is right about everything, but no one can deny her brilliance. It's an awesome novel, good luck with it.
Basically, it's a novel version of Plato"s Republic. The central idea is that the ruling class is inately superior and that the poor are poor because they are inferior.
Geez, talk about not understanding the book at all. Rand was strictly an anti-Platonist and pro-Aristotelian. The whole philosophy of the novel is that those who have outstanding ability have the right to pursue their own happiness. I don't know where you get this 'ruling over others' business, but you clearly need to work on your reading comprehension, Flamingo.
It's very anti-communism and anti-socialist. It's scary how much of it is happening at this point in time as well. And if we let Obama stay in the White House, we'll be headed down the path to socialism much quicker than anyone would like.
We are on strike against the dogma that the pursuit of one's happiness is evil against the doctrine that life is guilt. You damned man, but never dared to question your code. Now choose to perish, or to learn that the anti-mind is the anti-life.
Man has to be man. By choice. He has to hold his life as a value. He has to discover the values it requires and practice the virtues - by choice.
Centuries ago the man who was the greatest of your philosophers stated the formula defining the concept of existence and the rule of all knowledge: "a" is "a".
This is your basic moral choice. Thinking or non-thinking. Existence or non-existence. "a", or non-"a".
In the name of a return to morality you have sacrificed reason to faith. You have sacrificed wealth to need. You have sacrificed self-esteem to self-denial. You have sacrificed happiness to duty.
Are you beginning to see who is John Galt? I am proud of my own value, and of the fact that I wish to live.
"a" is "a".
Why then do you shrink in horror from the sight of the world around you? It is your moral ideal brought into reality. A world without mind.
They are taking you back to darker ages than any your history has known. Their purpose is to deprive you of the concept on which man's mind, his life and his culture, depend. The concept of an objective reality.
The world you desired can be won. It exists. It is real. It is possible. It's yours. But to win it requires your total dedictation and a total break with the world of your past.
With the doctrine that man is a sacrificial animal who exists for the pleasure of others. Fight with the radiant certainty and the absolute rectitude of knowing, yours is the morality of life. You will win when you are ready to pronouce the oath I have taken at the start of my vow. I swear by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
by your rationalization i could murder your family and claim anything that is your as mine through strength of arms, with only society's retribution to deal with? that all actions can go unaccounted for? i like to think that those people who rape children and torture the innocent, especially when they dont get caught by men, will get theirs in the end. i dont like to think that one can commit any crime as long as they are clever enough not to get caught.
This is typical of you ignorant religious folk. Before you say stupid things like these and make an idiot out of yourself on the internet, why don't you go and look up the Objectivist Ethics and THEN come here and talk to me? If you'd known ANYTHING about objectivism you would know why precisely an Objectivist would never do that. It's obvious you are here only to argue without actually knowing anything about the subject at hand. Go instruct yourself, until then I am done with your idiocy.
Atlas Shrugged changed me in a way to the way I once felt, and understood, so more or less it was really a tune-up for my mind that desperatly need. Best book writen in the last 70 years
I am Reading This Book and I am Acctually in this chapter when Galt is doing the Speech. It is a great Book and Ayn has a point on the whole concept. Why should Men sacrifice his mind and value to please others ? Like here in the US. why should us (THe Working MEn) have are tax dollars go into wellfare, public housing etc for people that dont put any effort in even getting a joB ? THe people that dont work keep getting free money and housing wile the working people get punished (Taxed)Feel me ?
Because we live in a society... and we pay the price for our freedoms, and it's ethical. If you don't care for other people, then you are just selfish.
ah, but you are wrong, if you are selfish, and you value others, then you will care for them. read up on objectivism, once you realize the lie surrounding "selfishness" the rest of the philosophy follows. private donations are plenty to fund the UNFORTUNATE, but forcing some people to give money to others is wrong. if you believe in christianity then you will be against the government stealing money
It is never ethical to steal from others (so long as said others acquired what they have through just (i.e. nonaggressive) means). It is because I care so deeply about others, and their innate rights, that I must advocate the abolition of taxation and all other acts of aggression (war, rape, &c). Just because I'm poor is no excuse to violate the nonaggression axiom, and I'd be greedy if I did. I would rather die than violate the nonaggression axiom.
I fell in love with Dagny Taggart long ago. And I don't give a damn about Rand's beliefs or politics. It's a really good book, and so much of it is coming true. Why should mankind strive for greatness only to be punished. Didn't get on here to start an arguement, it was just to say nice job on the vid.
Don't get me wrong. I have lived my life the way I wanted to, on my own, earning with my own sweat and blood and I'm damn proud of it...but does that mean I should be selfish and never lend a helping hand to those who can't do what I've managed to do?
I've always had trouble believing that part of Rand's philosophy.
Good job on the video. I had to read Galt's speech about a dozen times before I got even close to comprehending it.
I have to say I've only read "Atlas shrugged" and "We the Living" by Rand; So I'm not fully aware of the ideals of objectivism (Although they have affected me greatly) . Having said that I wish to ask you one question...
If a man helps another man in any way whatsoever trivial or life-saving, is he expected to receive a return in payment in some kind, or can one do it unconditionally, irrevocably with no thought of gain in mind except that of the want to do it?
I'd be terrified of one claiming my ideals affected them when they are not even fully aware of them. I suggest you read "The Virtue of Selfishness" and then you can learn the answer for yourself.
To encourage you on your own initiative, I'll give you a quote: "There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them."
The gain that he or she would gain from helping someone else is the pleasure of helping to make that person happy. So you can't have both; unconditional help and wanting to help. The condition upon which that person helps is knowing that he or she will help make that person happy. It is a selfish ambition.
What Rand would advocate is not being an altruist. That is, tending to the devotion of other's welfare to no benefit of yourself. A "sacrifical lamb" using her term.
The USA which has been revered as the individualist model is now deeply/completely flawed. Small value creation; Big Debt. Cosnumer debt rose from 10 trillion to almost 50 trillion USD under Greenspan in 1987-2005.
Consume do not earn. Steal future wealth from your children/grand children. US government debt has 40 TRILLION in future value debt obligations ("entitlements"). After the repatriation/de-leveraging takes place the Dollar will fall like a stone. You ain't seen nothing yet.
Well, my little Kielbasa boy, check you premises: Alan Greenspan abandoned objectivist philosophy the moment he accepted to head the Federal Reserve. All those things you are talking about? They are the effects of government intervention. Please educate yourself before you open your mouth, or alternatively use it productively and put a potato in it.
The intelligence of man is nonsense to the creator. Science will never fully comprehend anything. When science makes a discovery about how things work, it just opens more questions.
Humble yourself before the Lord who loves you as his greatest creation and accept his love. That is all you will ever need. Books like this will only pollute your mind more than it already has been.
Yet the presumption of a supreme being opens yet more questions. from where did this being come from? Does it actually care about us? Is is called Yahweh or Krishna? The idea of an infinitely powerful, infinitely complex being answers no questions.
Say rightnow1212, what makes you think that it is individualism that is to blame? There are all kinds of mixed ideas that are going on everywhere, regardless of nation. How do you make such a connection?
How can you blame individualism for the new debt caused by massive bailouts? Have you not noticed the kinds of emotional appeals that were used to justify them? They were appeals for 'the good of the nation', 'the good of the economy' and 'the good of America'. In other words, altruism.
Really? America hasn't been capitalist for a VERY long time kieronj. The very problems America is facing now as a 'capitalist' state are actually the very problems written about in Atlas Shrugged. Capitalism isn't capitalism when it's bailed out by the state, or any of these other increasing government regulations that have been around for decades and decades. Your posit of 'flaws' is a puff of smoke, as what was supposed to 'fix' capitalism is what has ruined it.
sorry dude ur gonna have to explain more. Capitalism has lead to such a gaop between the haves and have nots that the have-nots often, not always, have no chance. capitalism has and over growth has polluted the environment and ruined the standing of the nation as a whole. its captialism in excess. it needs to be tamed and brought back
actually, lambspakeasadragon may have a point, as Ayn Rand developed objectivism, which focuses greatly on philosophical ideas of metaphysics, epistimology, aethetics, ethics, and politics. An understanding of all of these is clearly seen in Atlas Shrugged, and would be ideal knowledge for controlling large populations through hypnotism, without them being aware of it. Might just be a nice novel, though.
Wasn't Rand all about individual freedom? Rationality, Reason, and Self-Interest? The invisible hand of the free market guides humanity toward progress? How does this correspond to elite Illuminati's taking over the world?
Dunno but Atlas Shrugged is on my reading list...I think Rand is on to something, something good.
The "invisible hand" is a metaphor used by Adam Smith to reconcile capitalism with his Christian morality.
Ayn Rand most certainly rejected the idea. There is no invisible hand: capitalism is individuals doing good(pursuing their selfish interests) resulting in general welfare.
I have no responsibility towards you outside of treating you with justice and fairness and respecting your rights. That's IT, and that's what most objectivists will tell you. I am not responsible for your life in any way- is that what you are implying? That I am somehow responsible for your life and the outcome of it?
So you do have a responsibility to others-- treating them with justice and fairness and respecting their rights. But what if it contradicts rational egoism? Which one supersedes? How would you classify "doing the right thing"? Altruism or rational egoism? Aren't there gray areas, i.e. different ways of looking at it? Taking advantage of someone vs. helping them out... who decides? An arbitrator or each individual?
Rational Egoism and individual rights are tandem, there can be no contradiction. If someone violates the rights of others whilst claiming they are doing it in their rational self-interest, they are either making an error or judgment or are seeking to get away with a crime. The central principle of rational egoism is that man's life is his top value, and in order for this to be so he must respect that value in others as well- which extends to his individual rights.
Ok, so you are describing a situation that cannot exist in the real world. In every society there are criminals and many of them end up in positions of power and authority. So in theory Ayn Rand makes complete sense, but in practice it's all nonsense.
In fact, I don't even know why you are replying to this topic at all-- you have, at BEST, a cursory knowledge of the philosophy, probably even just a third party account of it, and still you pretend to make these assertions without having actually studied it? Please. All it does is make you look like an idiot and waste my time.
I operate in the real world calling a spade a spade. You operate in theory. I can offer my version of utopia where everyone follows the law. But you know what, it never works out that way. You need government to write laws and enforce them. Government is always corruptible. ALWAYS. You end up with a handful of power grabbers who hoard and control everything and enslave the rest. That is what's happening in the real world around us. I'm just pointing out this fact.
"I operate in the real world calling a spade a spade. You operate in theory."
So says the conspiracy nut that keeps talking about 'chemtrails'. Right, sister, you live in the 'real' world alright. Take your Kantian crap somewhere else and go bother someone else with your conspiracy theories. You wouldn't know reality if you found it swimming in your soup, sister.
I fail to see any evidence that a fully free market in the absence of a state apparatus could not provide law enforcement, arbitration, contract enforcement, or other security needs. I also fail to see any evidence that states are necessary for the promulgation of law. These are theories you hold. You operate in theory.
This book was written as a guide to the illuminati on how they will end the world. They were very annoyed when this book became a best seller because it exposes them. It tells of their plan to perform terrorism and destruction of the stock market etc that we are now seeing come into fruition. If you want a truly interesting book, try the bible, not this Illuminati garbage
Geez, you're a moron awash in conspiracy theories. The Bible is just as much of a fabrication as the illuminati. Go waste people's time elsewhere with your ludicrous illuminati theories.
Care to debate the legitimacy of scripture? You seem to be opinionated on the matter. I only ask that the either of us be able to publish the content of the discussion; unabridged of coarse.
If I were to debate you on 'the legitimacy of scripture' , it would imply -by my action- that there would actually be a possibility for a book that is comprised of nothing but mysticism and irrationality to actually be valid. I have as much desire to debate the validity of the scriptures as I do about debating the validity of communism.
It's just that you certainly have a lot of very vocal opinions regarding scripture which you are unwilling to defend. Anything--including my thoughts on scripture--about which I am vocal, I am also willing to defend in the arena of public debate.
You seem to question the bible as a credible source for historical data. Being a history buff, I refute this idea; and, I believe that I can show scripture to be among the most reliable of all ancient texts.
You are not qualified to debate with me, sir. I studied theology six years under the Jesuit priests. You may be a history buff, sir, but I am privy to all the philosophical inconsistencies in the core material itself. I have no interest in debating with amateurs, and worse, irrational amateurs.
Merry, you sound a little nutty; but as to my qualifications:
I have a bachelors degree in philosophy and religion, and a Master of Theology and Christian Apologetics degree, post-grad. I am currently working on my Doctorate of Theology degree. I am well versed in Greek and have studied Hebrew in grad school. I've studied hermeneutics under some of the leaders in the field today.
All that said, I'll stand on the strength of my arguments, how about you?
1) Amasa's father is listed as both Ishra the Israelite and Jether the Ishmaelite. Clearly historical incosistency or the world's first same-sex marriage. Explain.
2) Anah is listed in Genesis as the daughter of Zibeon, the brother of Zibeon in Chronicles, and the son of Zibeon in Chronicles as well. Did that involve a sex change operation and a time machine?
3) After the birth of Jesus, Joseph and Mary are said to have lived in Nazareth and traveled to Bethlehem because of a census (luke), but Matthew tells us they lived in Bethlehem and moved to Nazareth after returning from Egypt. Did Mapquest malfunction?
4) God is allegedly omnipotent. Matthew 19:26 claims "With god, all things are possible." Except where iron is involved- as Judges 1:19 shows us "And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron." Clearly, God must be an elf. So he is omnipotent?
5) Jesus was apparently born in TWO different years consecutively. Matthew and Luke state that Jesus was born in the days of Herod the King- who died in 4BCE. However, Luke makes reference of taxation "in those days" (re:birth of Jesus) first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria. Cyrenius didn't become a governor of Syria until 6CE, ten years after Herod's death. I assume Mary had an unusually long labor?
If scripture is valid, it must be able to have strong, factual evidence. The mere notion that you've had to study a subject such as "Christian Apologetics" shows that scripture cannot stand on its own two feet without citing a myriad of other things including fallacious arguments. I've read plenty of apologetics and they are insubstantial. You will not find "apologetics" studies for anything factual.
Just because you can 'defend' something in the arena of the public doesn't mean it's legitimate by any stretch. Such thinking is a product of the irrational magical approach that is necessitated by elements like scripture. Just because someone's vocal about something doesn't make it more or less worthwhile. Truth needs no defender.
Well done film and music. I encourage anyone who is interested to study Rand, she was Utopian in belief, and an equal in rigid thought and behavior to L Ron Hubbard of Scientoloy fame.
Revelation 12:9 talks about the Devil deceiving the whole world...
How in the world could he deceive everyone on this planet? and just how would he go about this and of course the answer is in 2 Cornithians ch 4 verses 3 and 4
2 COR ch 4:3 But if our gospel be hid it is hid to them that are lost:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the MINDS of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine onto them.
When I first began reading this novel I was shocked because the novel challenges every belief youve ever held about nearly everything, I said some bad things about Ayn Rand in my confusion, I have completed the novel, conducted research, and now have a firm understanding of the novel and objectivism and one thing is certain: Ayn Rand's writing and philosophy is luminous and Atlas Shrugged is the most spiritual thing I have ever read.
what music did you use for this movie? I love this movie by the way, this is really one of my favorite videos on youtube. Excellent trailer to show what Atlas Shrugged really is.
@waketheoblivious Wake, have you been remembering to wash the fruit BEFORE you eat it?
Merryjest 10 months ago
bonjour
RENEDU2 1 year ago
these people need some homeless dude to dry fuck them up the ass until they bleed all over their satin dresses. Who would develop a movie based on the writings of some russian hag who died before the internet came along. (Which unveils the true nature of humans.) The book was the worst and- paradoxically subjective- garbage right behind Mein Kompf in it's fail factor. I wasted a couple weeks of my life chugging through 1,250 pages just like some militant capitalist whale taking a run in bronx.
quidnick 1 year ago
@quidnick You forgot your meds again, didn't you?
Merryjest 10 months ago 54
I wish all those double-damned self-sacrificers would PRACTICE their moral code and kill themselves off already! ;-)
PureLiberalFire 1 year ago 5
Join us on the Atlas Shrugged The Movie's OFFICIAL twitter page here for behind the scenes photos and clips:
@_AtlasShrugged
vtrestrail 1 year ago 9
@vtrestrail OH HELL no! Don't you DARE ride on my popularity. That piece of trash you guys call a movie is an unmitigated disaster and it is an embarrassment to objectivists everywhere. Don't you dare post here again, you bloody second handers with your bargain-bin cast and idiotic director.
Merryjest 1 year ago
Yeah, uh... what? Aristotle was the first to say something along the lines of "existence exists," and was the first to discuss the law of identity: a = a
It had to do with his refuting, successfully I might add, of the Platonic forms. I find it interesting that Plato is much more widely read in schools and in college, while his student, Aristotle corrected much of his ideas and remains comparatively less popular. Leibniz the first? Breathtakingly wrong on that one.
Rockhorns76 1 year ago
@Rockhorns76 Ever notice how nihilists, though many of them claim to also be anarchists (or in-league with anarchists), always seem to advocate big government -- specifically, global government. Plato's concept of a "republic" was really the opposite of a true republic -- more of a police state. Socialists and fascists alike cling to the belief that civilization can't exist without the state. Even Aristotle believed that man only behaves as a beast in the absense of the state.
IggyHazard 1 year ago 5
Remove this crap from utube
oliversisson 1 year ago
@oliversisson Gladly! *removes you from 'utube'*
Done!
Merryjest 1 year ago 9
@moosatious I honestly don't know what weed you're smoking, but I want none of it. As far as Leibniz being the first formulator? Give me a break. Pick up Book VII of Aristotle's Metaphysics next time you pass through earth again on your rainbow trip to Whackdoodle. It might enlighten you.
So who is 'stupid', the people who for centuries refused to admit the axiomatic nature of existence, or the person who finally pointed it out??
Merryjest 1 year ago 15
@Merryjest Nobody refused to admit any axiomatic nature of existence lol. "Existence exists" is a tautology that everyone knows intuitively, regardless of anyone having to point it out. And it leads to no philosophically interesting conclusions for that reason. As many philosophers showed, foremost Descartes, the only existence you can have knowledge of is your own. Saying "existence exists" is like saying "apples are apples," it tells you nothing substantive. .
dbmcmillan 1 year ago
@dbmcmillan You just contradicted yourself by saying that E=E was a tautology... but then say "the only existence you can have knowledge of is your own." So outside of your own existence, you have no knowledge that anything else exists? So, in that framework, how is affirming the existence of everything else not an uninteresting point?
Merryjest 10 months ago
@ merryjest, you're suggesting that one needs to study the doctrines of others to appear 'literate' or at least 'semi-knowledgeable', which downplays the role of the self. SECOND HANDER LOVER! *throws merryjest and his guitar out of the moving van and proceeds to mac on Justice*
taobmc 2 years ago
Yeah, crazy me, I usually think that if you are trying to argue against something, you should do it from a position of knowledge. Like I said, silly, silly me. As long as we have you as the posterboy for the other approach, you'll be making my job much easier. Good job, mate!
Merryjest 2 years ago 3
Helicopters did not exist at this time either
buckybadger97 2 years ago
There was no period-appropriate airplane model in the program, and none made by the modding community. If you want to contribute, feel free!
Merryjest 2 years ago
galt had brown hair
JahLoveOnline 2 years ago
From the book: "When a shock raced through his chest, the gold-copper strands of his hair flew with the jerking of his head, as if waving in a gust of wind, beating against his face, across his eyes."
Gold-copper is not brown.
Merryjest 2 years ago
the film was really computer animated ?
ministryofsumthing 2 years ago
Known fact: Ayn Rand is a Romantic, meaning good guys are good, bad guys are bad, no middle ground (with the exception of Gail Wynand, who durr hurr'd in life)
Known fact: Ad Hominem statements invalidate your argument and make you look like a total douche.
BeatenByCats 2 years ago
Merryjest- you're dead on.
Villainroe- you obviously don't get the message, (Im saying that because of your analysis, not your opinion).
Look up Atlas shrugged: From Fact to Fiction in 52 Years to see how it pertains to today, becefore you try to make over-simplified slippery slope arguments to refute it.
Nillabeast 2 years ago 5
The core premise of Rand's book -- that a strike by CEOs brings the world to its knees -- is laughable. Was Rand talking about people like Rick Wagoner, Ken Lay, Charles Prince, Dick Fuld, Angelo Mozilo, Bernie Ebbers, and Al Dunlap? It was the greed and dishonesty of these and thousands of other of Rand's "elite" that made the US the mess that it is.
violaineroe 2 years ago
Read the book before you open your mouth and show how little you know about what you are attempting to ridicule.
What is the difference between two CEOS, James Taggart and Henry Rearden, in Atlas Shrugged? Why is one a villain and the other one a hero? When you inform yourself in the matter then you'll know the answer to your question. Research before ridicule, otherwise all you do is replicate the braying of other donkeys without doing your own thinking.
Merryjest 2 years ago
I do my own thinking, thanks. It has been years since I read Atlas and many more since I read The Fountainhead. The problem with your Taggart and Rearden comment is that they are fictional characters. They never existed. Of course, we like Rearden and dislike Taggart. But what would be a comparison in the real world? Who do you see as Taggart and who as Rearden? How do we really measure success?
violaineroe 2 years ago
Doesn't sound like you do your own thinking. You've only read the *fiction*, and yet you are making judgments of a philosophy. Have you ever read the non-fiction? introduction to its epistemology? The discussion of objectivist ethics in "Virtue of Selfishness" and Tara Smith's "Normative Ethics"?
All of the questions you are asking are discussed in these books, and more. Do you realize how poor you come accross?
Merryjest 2 years ago
Follow my advice: Get at least that book I mentioned which has a condensed but very comprehensive outtline of the philosophy as *study*, not as portrayed in fiction. AS and TF are works that have the philosophy as implicit, they are not meant to be didactic material and so they do not contain every aspect of the philosophy in an explicit manner. They are an adequate introduction, but if you read no more than that you really have very little.
Merryjest 2 years ago
So, you have a choice here: Buying at least that *one* book and giving it a read so that you can argue from at least a semi-knowledgeable position, or two: Continue to shoot off your mouth on a subject you are barely literate in, which would make you no different than Anne Coulter or Michael Moore. Your choice, but if you choose the second I'll not approve any more of your comments, as it would be a waste of time.
Merryjest 2 years ago
@violaineroe ooh, showing your ignorance here. the idol ayn loves isn't a ceo, it's the entrepreneur - the creative one who changes the world.
UpstairsMaid 1 year ago 5
Nice trailer. Things I'd like to note, since Atlas Shrugged was set in an era of either 30s, 40s, or 50s culture, the music should have been a little powerful instead of electric. Oh, yes, the accents too. Try imitating how Andrew Ryan from Bioshock speaks. Other than that, the trailer's awesome.
Recommendation to Lionhead Studios: The game should've had more Art Deco sets to give a Randian feel! Wish there'd be some mods for Art Deco cityscapes. T_T
jaguarjaguarjaguarja 2 years ago 4
I'm afraid I had to do with the soundtrack I had, my main soundtrack guy dropped out, I'm afraid.
Merryjest 2 years ago
Rand had it right on.
backlighting 2 years ago
known fact: Ayn Rand was a witch and mistress of Philip Rothchild
known fact: Atlas Shrugged was written for witches so they know how to use America to take over the world
alterdcrash 2 years ago
known fact: You need to start taking your medication again.
Merryjest 2 years ago
Known fact: Rand always was against mysticism, and that includes witchcraft. Read a book, asshole.
Sokret666 2 years ago
the vid is just that ,,a video,,,,but the comments are the REASON I went on a vacation.....we can not sway people away from their desire and drag them to reason...that has always been one of the errors in our reasoning. Where are you, Dagny? Scratch a $ sign on the compass at Horton Plaza and I will be there. Never forget.
johngalt1948 2 years ago 24
@johngalt1948
Take the red pill!
swu880 1 year ago
It shocks me that the ideas of a woman so divorced from human reality have taken such hold simply because they justify the selfishness and self righteousness that we all feel
Objectivism, Egoism of course these are valid but they fail to take into account what makes the accumulation of human knowledge possible, the desire to learn, the desire to teach, these are not things which have been imposed on us by our society, they are what have allowed us to rise above the other primates and rule
inceak 2 years ago
And by that statement you prove you have not only not read anything by Ayn Rand, but that you don't even know the philosophy at all. The desire to learn is one of the things most respected in the philosophy, under the virtue of Rationality.
If I were you, I'd make sure I know something before I open my mouth and make a fool of myself by repeating what everybody else says about Rand without actually doing the reading yourself.
Merryjest 2 years ago
The desire to learn sure, but the desire to teach is a different matter, you can think what you like about my ignorance, however the desire to teach is an altruistic position which flies in the face of the morality which Rand proposes
inceak 2 years ago
If competition is in your best interest (for without it you cannot truly refine yourself), then how can the desire to ensure that the world remain full of ideas and knowledge be altruistic? It would only be altruistic if you did not live in the world at all- so that the knowledge that is spread and improved cannot possibly benefit you at all.
Check your premises.
Merryjest 2 years ago
The benefits of competition is one of the beautiful myths of capitalism, all the truly great achievements of mankind have been accomplished through collaboration
inceak 2 years ago
Goodness, you're a Moron.
Go ask Beethoven who co-wrote his 9th symphony for him. Don't waste my time any further. You fear competition because you know you are simply a mediocre who wants to let others see to your survival.
Merryjest 2 years ago
As you requested I will not waste your time any further, except to say that my PhD and multiple patents beg to differ with your characterization of me as a moron, however my ego does not require me take full credit for this work, I realize and am proud of the fact that my accomplishments could not have been made without the collaboration and insights of the scientific community
inceak 2 years ago
If you had a PHD and were as proud of it as you pretend to be, you wouldn't seek to validate it by throwing it in my face as some sort of childish gauntlet ("look at me! I have diploma! Ergo I'm special!")
Perhaps your lack of self-esteem comes precisely from the fact that you don't claim anything for yourself, so therefore at least you want to hold on to the honor of having a piece of paper. What good does it do you when you don't have the cojones to claim credit for anything?
None.
Merryjest 2 years ago
Also, your recent activity shows that you've been obsessively stalking videos about Rand and snarking on them.
I thought PHDs had better things to do with their time than go on a crusade because "Someone on the internet is wrong!"
I'm going to hazard your PhD was issued somewhere in the Caribbean.
Merryjest 2 years ago
I love teaching people. I love watching them gain strength. I love that they can help me with what they learn. I love that they expand in ways I cannot and I can then learn from the frontiers they cross. I I I love it. I I I love it. For me.
BanjoNaps 2 years ago
Did Beethoven build his own piano? Feed himself? Make his own clothes? Build his own house? Teach himself music? Of course not. Rand's line of argument doesn't make sense.
violaineroe 2 years ago
You are starting from the premise that man must re-invent the wheel every single time. If you KNEW anything about the philosophy you are trying to ridicule, you'd know that knowledge is not considered a finite resource.That the most active principle is the trader principle: Individual A trades with Individual B for something of value WITH something of value (money, tutoring, odds and ends). Beethoven obtained his pianos with the money he obtained from trading his music with those who valued it.
Merryjest 2 years ago
- he studied with Haydn and other masters in a voluntary exchange. He bought his clothes from traders who created those goods, and the exchange was a voluntary one. Your error is assuming that Objectivism equals a cynical exploitative attitude towards the rest of the world. Why don't you do yourself a favor and buy "Objectivism in one lesson" on Amazon? Otherwise I'm afraid you'll keep snarking without any actual knowledge. At least KNOW what you critique firsthand. Otherwise you'd be a parrot
Merryjest 2 years ago
Sure it does. It is the answer to the failings of Socialist Russia, and if you knew anything about Raynd, you'd know that..
Taking it out of context doesn't negate the argument.
Nillabeast 2 years ago 2
if youtube were not compeating with other sites for ad money (from those pop up ad's powered by google on the videos and others) you would not have this forum or this video to watch. If computer companies werent compeating to sell you your next computer... you wouldnt have the video card in your computer... if internet companies werent compeating youd still be using a 4k dial up modem.. if you werent compeating with others on this website, there would be no intellectual discourse
ffrank345 2 years ago
incek: Teaching could easially be one of the most selfish of enterprises imaginable.
What narcicist would not jump at the chance to stand in front of a crowd of adoring fans hanging on every word they say because it is importaint to the crowd that they listen to whatever you the narcicist has to say..
Teaching could be a most selfish rush - opposit of altruism.
Check your premises.
Martintfre 2 years ago 3
If were to enjoy teaching, it was something i loved to do, something i did because i enjoyed HELPING others learn... especially people who i liked... then it is my choice to do so. I am not teaching because even tho i dont want to, i see the value in other people education, so i, at the expense of my happiness teach them... i am teaching to bennifit myself while others are bennifitting too
Rand doesnt say its bad to help people, only bad to forget yourself out of duty to others.
ffrank345 2 years ago
inceak, you should read the book before making an ass out of yourself.
elsquibbs 2 years ago 14
I love this line:
"Why then, do you shrink in horror from the sight of the world around you? It is your moral ideal brought into reality"
TaffyAlpha 2 years ago 5
What is [A in A]?
SunBeamsan 2 years ago
That's "A is A", it's the law of identity: A thing cannot be anything other than itself, it has definable attributes and characteristics. Metaphysically it implies we exist in a universe that can be known and of which we are aware, but which is not tied to our awareness to exist.
Merryjest 2 years ago
wonderful book. god i wish i lived in a country/world based on these principles. it would be a planet of advanced, independent, self sufficient, superbeings.
but no, im stuck in 21st america, steadily consumed by begging, looting, welfare loving socialists and a big govt ready to shackle everyone.
Ron Paul-Ayn Rand 2012.
bring america back!
ugotpimp 2 years ago 10
i think it would be so cool to make a movie but this book is very long and they'd have to get everything just right or they wouldn't do the book justice. i don't think the directors could pull it off in a timely matter (1-2 hrs). this movie would have to be hours long. but surprisingly i wouldn't mind lol as long as they get everything right.
Wrissamae 2 years ago 5
from what i hear a few weeks ago at slash film, is that charlize theron was in talks to make atlas shrugged , this is were it gets hazy for me. but i believe that it would be a mini series or something like that assuming it ever gets made
biggo07 2 years ago
we don't need a movie.
we are living it.
kaffir2 2 years ago 2
Wow! We are beginning the Atlas Shrugged world with Obama. God help us!
garybsg 2 years ago 16
Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?
NO says the man in Washington. It belongs to the POOR.
NO says the man in The Vatican, it belongs to GOD.
NO says the man in Moscow, it belongs to EVERYONE
am i doin it rite?
ijustreview 2 years ago 13
What? That is from Bioshock, not Atlas.
thespecter2 2 years ago 3
Hey Merryjest
I thoroughly enjoyed reading your comment. you seem to have done lot of research or studied objectivism. where can get the ' objectivism ethics'. is there a website?thanks
TegArjun 2 years ago
The best place to look is the Ayn Rand Bookstore, which has her books. I suggest starting with "Philosophy: Who needs it?" then moving on to "The Virtue of Selfishness", "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" all by Ayn Rand, and then "Viable Values" by Tara Smith.
No, I do not teach- I have other things on my mind at this point.
Merryjest 2 years ago
A word on power, and those who seek it. Those who cannot produce seek power over those who do. This has been true since the first cavemen went on the hunt, while weaker men stayed behind and collected the masses. This is the basis of all religion and political structures. Todays "leaders" are the worst yet, they don't even bother to pretend anymore. Rep.,Dem,Lib, the are all the same, they are just trying to make you THINK you have a choice. Death by club or nuke is still death.
Vindicator451 2 years ago 7
Hey Merryjest
I liked your comments and intellect. you seem to have done alot of research on objectism. what do you do? do you teach objectivism?
TegArjun 2 years ago
...cont. Concerning charity, its wonderful if its voluntary, its evil when its forced. I would like to add aline to an old axiom.
"Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day, Teach a man to fish, and he eats for a lifetime. BUT IF A MAN REFUSES TO FISH, THAN HE DESERVES TO STARVE!'
Vindicator451 2 years ago 10
...cont. I'll give you an example, Henry Ford was a brillant industrialist who created the first mass produced automobile. Henry Ford IV, is a medicore heir who is in well over his head. He is the lessour son of greater sires. He lacks his G-G-Great gradfathers ability. There is a very big differance in AQUIRING wealth, and CREATING it. Most corporate leaders only aquire wealth, they often make more when they leave a company, than while employed. Few, if any CEO's actually CREATE anything!
Vindicator451 2 years ago
There seems to be alot of mythconceptions about CAPITALISM. In simple terms I'll try to point out some small points. First off, this country has never been truely capitalistic, it was shackled from the very beginning by our well meaning founding fathers. Secondly one condemns capitalism is failing because the premises is unsound. The true reason of the failure is caused by people WITHOUT ability are running the corporations and the government. cont.
Vindicator451 2 years ago 7
they say that this book was written for orders to the illuminati
lorenti18 2 years ago
You think you can prove right and wrong?
Rizeka 2 years ago
People who say there is no right and wrong usually are the kind of people who want to get away with both without consequences.
Merryjest 2 years ago
o and please explain to me what "A" is "A" means lol thank you very much.
RevolutionarySavior 2 years ago
How can you be 21 years old and be in the 10th grade?
Merryjest 2 years ago
hello, Merryjest. I just wanted to ask for your help because i am currently reading this book and I'm having a little trouble fully understanding the concept of John Galt. I am a 10th grade student if that helps in understanding why its so hard to comprehend the book. lol. But please, explain to me the meaning of the concept and philosophy of the novel.
RevolutionarySavior 2 years ago
I'll try to break down a 1200 page novel in a few sentences. To never sacrifice the ability of the strong for the need of the weak and to hold one's life as one's ultimate and absolute value would be the themes. "A is A" means that man must be man, but he has a choice to think or not to think, to work or not to work, to have worth or not. I don't think Ayn Rand is right about everything, but no one can deny her brilliance. It's an awesome novel, good luck with it.
Residhens 2 years ago 3
What narrator is that? I have a different narrator for my book.
WilliamDurocher 2 years ago
Basically, it's a novel version of Plato"s Republic. The central idea is that the ruling class is inately superior and that the poor are poor because they are inferior.
DocFlamingo 2 years ago
Geez, talk about not understanding the book at all. Rand was strictly an anti-Platonist and pro-Aristotelian. The whole philosophy of the novel is that those who have outstanding ability have the right to pursue their own happiness. I don't know where you get this 'ruling over others' business, but you clearly need to work on your reading comprehension, Flamingo.
Merryjest 2 years ago
Flamingo, This book is not about Communism...
Stunr99 2 years ago
It's very anti-communism and anti-socialist. It's scary how much of it is happening at this point in time as well. And if we let Obama stay in the White House, we'll be headed down the path to socialism much quicker than anyone would like.
Stupid liberals.
numdmind 2 years ago 7
Ayn Rand was a genius. Read Atlas Shrugged!!
backlighting 2 years ago 6
You can get it off cheap from a bookstore.
All that I will tell you is that it is about the importance of the individual mind.
Merryjest 2 years ago
...and of passion. But nothing can answer your question better than reading it yourself. It will stir something deep within... read it!
steelregn 2 years ago
"They are taking you back to darker ages than mankind has ever known." So True!
PammyG68 2 years ago 4
This is awesome!
MrTaylorYeah 2 years ago 2
After all, Dagny is who Kira would have become, had she been born in a free country.
Merryjest 2 years ago
For twelve years you have been asking "Who is John Galt?" This is John Galt speaking.
I am the man who loves his life.
ccxviii 2 years ago 7
We are on strike against the dogma that the pursuit of one's happiness is evil against the doctrine that life is guilt. You damned man, but never dared to question your code. Now choose to perish, or to learn that the anti-mind is the anti-life.
Man has to be man. By choice. He has to hold his life as a value. He has to discover the values it requires and practice the virtues - by choice.
ccxviii 2 years ago 7
Centuries ago the man who was the greatest of your philosophers stated the formula defining the concept of existence and the rule of all knowledge: "a" is "a".
This is your basic moral choice. Thinking or non-thinking. Existence or non-existence. "a", or non-"a".
"a" is "a".
Reason. Purpose. Self-esteem. Rationality. Independent. Integrity. Honesty. Justice. Productiveness. Pride.
ccxviii 2 years ago 6
In the name of a return to morality you have sacrificed reason to faith. You have sacrificed wealth to need. You have sacrificed self-esteem to self-denial. You have sacrificed happiness to duty.
Are you beginning to see who is John Galt? I am proud of my own value, and of the fact that I wish to live.
"a" is "a".
Why then do you shrink in horror from the sight of the world around you? It is your moral ideal brought into reality. A world without mind.
ccxviii 2 years ago 5
They are taking you back to darker ages than any your history has known. Their purpose is to deprive you of the concept on which man's mind, his life and his culture, depend. The concept of an objective reality.
The world you desired can be won. It exists. It is real. It is possible. It's yours. But to win it requires your total dedictation and a total break with the world of your past.
ccxviii 2 years ago 4
With the doctrine that man is a sacrificial animal who exists for the pleasure of others. Fight with the radiant certainty and the absolute rectitude of knowing, yours is the morality of life. You will win when you are ready to pronouce the oath I have taken at the start of my vow. I swear by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
ccxviii 2 years ago 4
Merryjest, much respect. This is good stuff, and you seem to know what you're talking about.
One question, who is the speaker in this video, and what's the source of the speech? Is it from an audio book?
Buffoon1980 2 years ago
Yes, it's from the abridged Atlas Shrugged audiobook.
Merryjest 2 years ago
by your rationalization i could murder your family and claim anything that is your as mine through strength of arms, with only society's retribution to deal with? that all actions can go unaccounted for? i like to think that those people who rape children and torture the innocent, especially when they dont get caught by men, will get theirs in the end. i dont like to think that one can commit any crime as long as they are clever enough not to get caught.
DEMODICK35 3 years ago
This is typical of you ignorant religious folk. Before you say stupid things like these and make an idiot out of yourself on the internet, why don't you go and look up the Objectivist Ethics and THEN come here and talk to me? If you'd known ANYTHING about objectivism you would know why precisely an Objectivist would never do that. It's obvious you are here only to argue without actually knowing anything about the subject at hand. Go instruct yourself, until then I am done with your idiocy.
Merryjest 3 years ago
the devil was kicked out of heaven because it is lonely knowing things?
watchthis23ny 3 years ago
I really wish I had thought of doing this with The Movies...Nice work.
numdmind 3 years ago
Atlas Shrugged changed me in a way to the way I once felt, and understood, so more or less it was really a tune-up for my mind that desperatly need. Best book writen in the last 70 years
gobluebuckeye 3 years ago
I am Reading This Book and I am Acctually in this chapter when Galt is doing the Speech. It is a great Book and Ayn has a point on the whole concept. Why should Men sacrifice his mind and value to please others ? Like here in the US. why should us (THe Working MEn) have are tax dollars go into wellfare, public housing etc for people that dont put any effort in even getting a joB ? THe people that dont work keep getting free money and housing wile the working people get punished (Taxed)Feel me ?
hitthemhard 3 years ago 6
Because we live in a society... and we pay the price for our freedoms, and it's ethical. If you don't care for other people, then you are just selfish.
mk6758 3 years ago
ah, but you are wrong, if you are selfish, and you value others, then you will care for them. read up on objectivism, once you realize the lie surrounding "selfishness" the rest of the philosophy follows. private donations are plenty to fund the UNFORTUNATE, but forcing some people to give money to others is wrong. if you believe in christianity then you will be against the government stealing money
popeontop 3 years ago
Dear mk6758,
It is never ethical to steal from others (so long as said others acquired what they have through just (i.e. nonaggressive) means). It is because I care so deeply about others, and their innate rights, that I must advocate the abolition of taxation and all other acts of aggression (war, rape, &c). Just because I'm poor is no excuse to violate the nonaggression axiom, and I'd be greedy if I did. I would rather die than violate the nonaggression axiom.
Respectfully,
Alex Peak
allixpeeke 3 years ago
@mk6758 Wrong. What is selfish is to consume more than you produce (which is what the people on aid do).
ajruckman 2 years ago 4
I fell in love with Dagny Taggart long ago. And I don't give a damn about Rand's beliefs or politics. It's a really good book, and so much of it is coming true. Why should mankind strive for greatness only to be punished. Didn't get on here to start an arguement, it was just to say nice job on the vid.
TheBeersCold 3 years ago 5
Fantastic.
MrTaylorYeah 3 years ago
My last two comments were in reply to kieronj and raygarretjr
asherwolfstein 3 years ago
Don't get me wrong. I have lived my life the way I wanted to, on my own, earning with my own sweat and blood and I'm damn proud of it...but does that mean I should be selfish and never lend a helping hand to those who can't do what I've managed to do?
I've always had trouble believing that part of Rand's philosophy.
Good job on the video. I had to read Galt's speech about a dozen times before I got even close to comprehending it.
delta01123 3 years ago
Sounds to me like a couple of re-reads would do you good.
Merryjest 3 years ago
I have to say I've only read "Atlas shrugged" and "We the Living" by Rand; So I'm not fully aware of the ideals of objectivism (Although they have affected me greatly) . Having said that I wish to ask you one question...
If a man helps another man in any way whatsoever trivial or life-saving, is he expected to receive a return in payment in some kind, or can one do it unconditionally, irrevocably with no thought of gain in mind except that of the want to do it?
delta01123 3 years ago
I'd be terrified of one claiming my ideals affected them when they are not even fully aware of them. I suggest you read "The Virtue of Selfishness" and then you can learn the answer for yourself.
To encourage you on your own initiative, I'll give you a quote: "There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them."
Now you can do the rest of the research yourself.
Merryjest 3 years ago
The gain that he or she would gain from helping someone else is the pleasure of helping to make that person happy. So you can't have both; unconditional help and wanting to help. The condition upon which that person helps is knowing that he or she will help make that person happy. It is a selfish ambition.
What Rand would advocate is not being an altruist. That is, tending to the devotion of other's welfare to no benefit of yourself. A "sacrifical lamb" using her term.
Chill4736 3 years ago
Freedom is Capitalism, I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man
cerberus1991 3 years ago
The USA which has been revered as the individualist model is now deeply/completely flawed. Small value creation; Big Debt. Cosnumer debt rose from 10 trillion to almost 50 trillion USD under Greenspan in 1987-2005.
Consume do not earn. Steal future wealth from your children/grand children. US government debt has 40 TRILLION in future value debt obligations ("entitlements"). After the repatriation/de-leveraging takes place the Dollar will fall like a stone. You ain't seen nothing yet.
rightnow1212 3 years ago
Well, my little Kielbasa boy, check you premises: Alan Greenspan abandoned objectivist philosophy the moment he accepted to head the Federal Reserve. All those things you are talking about? They are the effects of government intervention. Please educate yourself before you open your mouth, or alternatively use it productively and put a potato in it.
Merryjest 3 years ago
The intelligence of man is nonsense to the creator. Science will never fully comprehend anything. When science makes a discovery about how things work, it just opens more questions.
Humble yourself before the Lord who loves you as his greatest creation and accept his love. That is all you will ever need. Books like this will only pollute your mind more than it already has been.
lambspakeasadragon 3 years ago
I thought you were quoting one of the progressive characters out of Atlas Shrugged.
Maybe it is your book that has polluted the minds of men?
uberscientist 3 years ago
Yet the presumption of a supreme being opens yet more questions. from where did this being come from? Does it actually care about us? Is is called Yahweh or Krishna? The idea of an infinitely powerful, infinitely complex being answers no questions.
davidlong211 3 years ago
Ugh. Don't say "check you premises".
Find your own words. Seriously.
This is coming from someone who owns a copy of the Ayn Rand Lexicon signed by Harry Binswanger and who ALSO... voted for Barack Obama in November.
Dozirulf 3 years ago
The first merely says that you collect rarities, while the second states that you are a fool. Why should I be impressed by you?
Furthermore, when did words lose their meaning just because someone else said them?
Merryjest 3 years ago
Say rightnow1212, what makes you think that it is individualism that is to blame? There are all kinds of mixed ideas that are going on everywhere, regardless of nation. How do you make such a connection?
How can you blame individualism for the new debt caused by massive bailouts? Have you not noticed the kinds of emotional appeals that were used to justify them? They were appeals for 'the good of the nation', 'the good of the economy' and 'the good of America'. In other words, altruism.
nurbSoldier 3 years ago 2
so true dude. Ayn didnt see the flaws of capitalism which are sooooo sooooo obvious now!
kieronj 3 years ago
Really? America hasn't been capitalist for a VERY long time kieronj. The very problems America is facing now as a 'capitalist' state are actually the very problems written about in Atlas Shrugged. Capitalism isn't capitalism when it's bailed out by the state, or any of these other increasing government regulations that have been around for decades and decades. Your posit of 'flaws' is a puff of smoke, as what was supposed to 'fix' capitalism is what has ruined it.
asherwolfstein 3 years ago
sorry dude ur gonna have to explain more. Capitalism has lead to such a gaop between the haves and have nots that the have-nots often, not always, have no chance. capitalism has and over growth has polluted the environment and ruined the standing of the nation as a whole. its captialism in excess. it needs to be tamed and brought back
kieronj 3 years ago 2
actually, lambspakeasadragon may have a point, as Ayn Rand developed objectivism, which focuses greatly on philosophical ideas of metaphysics, epistimology, aethetics, ethics, and politics. An understanding of all of these is clearly seen in Atlas Shrugged, and would be ideal knowledge for controlling large populations through hypnotism, without them being aware of it. Might just be a nice novel, though.
yawnhockel 3 years ago
... your tinfoil hat is showing.
Merryjest 3 years ago
Wasn't Rand all about individual freedom? Rationality, Reason, and Self-Interest? The invisible hand of the free market guides humanity toward progress? How does this correspond to elite Illuminati's taking over the world?
Dunno but Atlas Shrugged is on my reading list...I think Rand is on to something, something good.
rseveran 3 years ago
The "invisible hand" is a metaphor used by Adam Smith to reconcile capitalism with his Christian morality.
Ayn Rand most certainly rejected the idea. There is no invisible hand: capitalism is individuals doing good(pursuing their selfish interests) resulting in general welfare.
deinse81 3 years ago
people need to balance their own interest with responsibilities to others also
kieronj 3 years ago
I have no responsibility towards you outside of treating you with justice and fairness and respecting your rights. That's IT, and that's what most objectivists will tell you. I am not responsible for your life in any way- is that what you are implying? That I am somehow responsible for your life and the outcome of it?
Merryjest 3 years ago
So you do have a responsibility to others-- treating them with justice and fairness and respecting their rights. But what if it contradicts rational egoism? Which one supersedes? How would you classify "doing the right thing"? Altruism or rational egoism? Aren't there gray areas, i.e. different ways of looking at it? Taking advantage of someone vs. helping them out... who decides? An arbitrator or each individual?
felicity5150 3 years ago
There are no gray areas.
Rational Egoism and individual rights are tandem, there can be no contradiction. If someone violates the rights of others whilst claiming they are doing it in their rational self-interest, they are either making an error or judgment or are seeking to get away with a crime. The central principle of rational egoism is that man's life is his top value, and in order for this to be so he must respect that value in others as well- which extends to his individual rights.
Merryjest 3 years ago
Ok, so you are describing a situation that cannot exist in the real world. In every society there are criminals and many of them end up in positions of power and authority. So in theory Ayn Rand makes complete sense, but in practice it's all nonsense.
felicity5150 3 years ago
You really *are* a moron. That's why police and laws exist to punish those who infringe upon the individual rights of others.
And don't hit me with that "it cannot exist in the real world" drivel, it's pure Kantian bullshit and you know it.
Merryjest 3 years ago
In fact, I don't even know why you are replying to this topic at all-- you have, at BEST, a cursory knowledge of the philosophy, probably even just a third party account of it, and still you pretend to make these assertions without having actually studied it? Please. All it does is make you look like an idiot and waste my time.
Merryjest 3 years ago
I operate in the real world calling a spade a spade. You operate in theory. I can offer my version of utopia where everyone follows the law. But you know what, it never works out that way. You need government to write laws and enforce them. Government is always corruptible. ALWAYS. You end up with a handful of power grabbers who hoard and control everything and enslave the rest. That is what's happening in the real world around us. I'm just pointing out this fact.
felicity5150 3 years ago
"I operate in the real world calling a spade a spade. You operate in theory."
So says the conspiracy nut that keeps talking about 'chemtrails'. Right, sister, you live in the 'real' world alright. Take your Kantian crap somewhere else and go bother someone else with your conspiracy theories. You wouldn't know reality if you found it swimming in your soup, sister.
Merryjest 3 years ago
felicity5150,
I fail to see any evidence that a fully free market in the absence of a state apparatus could not provide law enforcement, arbitration, contract enforcement, or other security needs. I also fail to see any evidence that states are necessary for the promulgation of law. These are theories you hold. You operate in theory.
Respectfully yours,
Alex Peak
allixpeeke 3 years ago
Yes read it, I just got halfway done... empowering book. I am scared to see what Hollywood does to it.
uberscientist 3 years ago
This book was written as a guide to the illuminati on how they will end the world. They were very annoyed when this book became a best seller because it exposes them. It tells of their plan to perform terrorism and destruction of the stock market etc that we are now seeing come into fruition. If you want a truly interesting book, try the bible, not this Illuminati garbage
lambspakeasadragon 3 years ago
Geez, you're a moron awash in conspiracy theories. The Bible is just as much of a fabrication as the illuminati. Go waste people's time elsewhere with your ludicrous illuminati theories.
Merryjest 3 years ago
Merry,
Care to debate the legitimacy of scripture? You seem to be opinionated on the matter. I only ask that the either of us be able to publish the content of the discussion; unabridged of coarse.
raygarrettjr 3 years ago
If I were to debate you on 'the legitimacy of scripture' , it would imply -by my action- that there would actually be a possibility for a book that is comprised of nothing but mysticism and irrationality to actually be valid. I have as much desire to debate the validity of the scriptures as I do about debating the validity of communism.
Merryjest 3 years ago
It's just that you certainly have a lot of very vocal opinions regarding scripture which you are unwilling to defend. Anything--including my thoughts on scripture--about which I am vocal, I am also willing to defend in the arena of public debate.
You seem to question the bible as a credible source for historical data. Being a history buff, I refute this idea; and, I believe that I can show scripture to be among the most reliable of all ancient texts.
In other words... put up, or shut up.
raygarrettjr 3 years ago
You are not qualified to debate with me, sir. I studied theology six years under the Jesuit priests. You may be a history buff, sir, but I am privy to all the philosophical inconsistencies in the core material itself. I have no interest in debating with amateurs, and worse, irrational amateurs.
Merryjest 3 years ago
Merry, you sound a little nutty; but as to my qualifications:
I have a bachelors degree in philosophy and religion, and a Master of Theology and Christian Apologetics degree, post-grad. I am currently working on my Doctorate of Theology degree. I am well versed in Greek and have studied Hebrew in grad school. I've studied hermeneutics under some of the leaders in the field today.
All that said, I'll stand on the strength of my arguments, how about you?
My transcripts are available.
raygarrettjr 3 years ago
Alright, let's go to factual evidence. Here we go:
Merryjest 3 years ago
1) Amasa's father is listed as both Ishra the Israelite and Jether the Ishmaelite. Clearly historical incosistency or the world's first same-sex marriage. Explain.
2) Anah is listed in Genesis as the daughter of Zibeon, the brother of Zibeon in Chronicles, and the son of Zibeon in Chronicles as well. Did that involve a sex change operation and a time machine?
Merryjest 3 years ago
3) After the birth of Jesus, Joseph and Mary are said to have lived in Nazareth and traveled to Bethlehem because of a census (luke), but Matthew tells us they lived in Bethlehem and moved to Nazareth after returning from Egypt. Did Mapquest malfunction?
Merryjest 3 years ago
4) God is allegedly omnipotent. Matthew 19:26 claims "With god, all things are possible." Except where iron is involved- as Judges 1:19 shows us "And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron." Clearly, God must be an elf. So he is omnipotent?
Merryjest 3 years ago
5) Jesus was apparently born in TWO different years consecutively. Matthew and Luke state that Jesus was born in the days of Herod the King- who died in 4BCE. However, Luke makes reference of taxation "in those days" (re:birth of Jesus) first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria. Cyrenius didn't become a governor of Syria until 6CE, ten years after Herod's death. I assume Mary had an unusually long labor?
Merryjest 3 years ago
If scripture is valid, it must be able to have strong, factual evidence. The mere notion that you've had to study a subject such as "Christian Apologetics" shows that scripture cannot stand on its own two feet without citing a myriad of other things including fallacious arguments. I've read plenty of apologetics and they are insubstantial. You will not find "apologetics" studies for anything factual.
Merryjest 3 years ago
Just because you can 'defend' something in the arena of the public doesn't mean it's legitimate by any stretch. Such thinking is a product of the irrational magical approach that is necessitated by elements like scripture. Just because someone's vocal about something doesn't make it more or less worthwhile. Truth needs no defender.
asherwolfstein 3 years ago
um this video rules. and you know, i am a rand fan and all but...seriously, what's with all the raping? i've always wondered that.
holyotpbatman 3 years ago
Ayn Rand and L Ron are on equal ground ...they are for entertainment purposes only.
I understand, more study required.
Isabella8466 3 years ago
Geez. Tallying up another moron for the count. L. Ron indeed.
Merryjest 3 years ago
Well done film and music. I encourage anyone who is interested to study Rand, she was Utopian in belief, and an equal in rigid thought and behavior to L Ron Hubbard of Scientoloy fame.
Isabella8466 3 years ago
L Ron Hubbard? What the hell you talkin' about, Willis?
Merryjest 3 years ago
Revelation 12:9 talks about the Devil deceiving the whole world...
How in the world could he deceive everyone on this planet? and just how would he go about this and of course the answer is in 2 Cornithians ch 4 verses 3 and 4
2 COR ch 4:3 But if our gospel be hid it is hid to them that are lost:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the MINDS of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine onto them.
justdoit4242 3 years ago
The crazies just gravitate to this video, don't they? So, what asylum did you break out of?
Merryjest 3 years ago
Oh, how fitting during this time!
Rocky Mountains anyone?
Great post
5*/FAV
DABIGRAGU1 3 years ago 2
When I first began reading this novel I was shocked because the novel challenges every belief youve ever held about nearly everything, I said some bad things about Ayn Rand in my confusion, I have completed the novel, conducted research, and now have a firm understanding of the novel and objectivism and one thing is certain: Ayn Rand's writing and philosophy is luminous and Atlas Shrugged is the most spiritual thing I have ever read.
sbrian28 3 years ago 3
welcome to Galt's Gultch
Congradulations
flyfishingcarp 3 years ago
Without a doubt, I would put this somewhere in the top 20 best videos on Youtube.
Waltkeven 3 years ago
what music did you use for this movie? I love this movie by the way, this is really one of my favorite videos on youtube. Excellent trailer to show what Atlas Shrugged really is.
gumbiproductions 3 years ago
Hooray for selfishness!
(pretentious, too.)
badnewswade 3 years ago