10 ms·

Ayn Rand reviews children’s movies (2014)

31 points by talolard 5y ago

satisfice 5y ago
Ayn Rand could not have reviewed these movies, obviously, because in none of the reviews does the word “depraved” appear.
goatsneez 5y ago
I big miss at a humour in my view. Although, in general Im puzzled by the cliche portrayal of A.R.'s views as somewhat cold or inhumane. Though I did not read all her essays and works, Im familiar with the several ones which warrant no such trivialized characterization. On the contrary, she explicitly and implicitly said that "...reason and emotions are not contradictory or in opposition. It is only when we do not understand our emotions that such dichotomy appears". Any thinking individual can sign his name under this. And, that is why we have psychiatry industry, billion dollar self-help book industry, etc. On the other hand we have also recreational drugs and alcohol abuse, etc -- which is the point in case, when emotions take over faculty of reason to govern our decisions/life that ... destruction, destruction, destruction...
- nerdponx 5y ago
  https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/ayn-rand-writes-rudolph-the-red-nosed-reindeer https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/ayn-rand-writes-rudolph-...
  - steveylang 5y ago
    Not surprisingly, much better satire from McSweeneys.
- tgv 5y ago
  That's not in contradiction of coldness or inhumanity. You can be an utter sociopath, and reason accordingly. The view of Rand comes from the certainly implied lack of empathy with the lesser fortunate. There's a quote where she expresses appreciation of a serial killer, because of this.
  - horns4lyfe 5y ago
    I think the point is that when trying not to help the less fortunate, if we resort only to emotion without reason, we just ending up hurting them. Which can certainly be seen in plenty of situations today, IMO.
    - tgv 5y ago
      First, as an absolute statement, that's untrue, and who is going to help others without a bit of thinking? So not helping is almost certainly worse.
    - me_me_me 5y ago
      > if we resort only to emotion without reason If you walk down a street and see a musician play with donation box, if you were using only emotions without reason you'd give away your wallet and all rings and keys to the car. Its a nonsensical statement, nobody is driven only via emotions. But some are driven completely without emotions.
- fullshark 5y ago
  Agreed. I will say Ayn Rand's philosophy doesn't really have any room for parents/children in it, people are just fully realized individuals suddenly and without any childhood/adolescence/schooling. None of her characters have any interest in raising children. Children are dependents, and parents (or the state if you want to go that route) need to raise them if you want a society to continue, it's a pretty huge blind spot imo. I thought this was gonna point this out, but this is just tired "lol capitalists" jokes. The Ayn Rand school for tots joke from the Simpsons is a million times funnier and incisive imo as it targets this weakness of her philosophy and it's just a throwaway joke.
  - gspencley 5y ago
    "I will say Ayn Rand's philosophy doesn't really have any room for parents/children in it," That sentence misses the very definition of philosophy and its purpose. It is true that Ayn Rand never had children and didn't talk much about parenting (although she did in various Q&A and also spoke about education - was very fond of Montessori for example), but that doesn't mean that Objectivism, which is Ayn Rand's philosophy, has no value to a parent or child. Ayn Rand offered Objectivism as a philosophy for an individual human being, to aid in living in the natural world as a human. It is a comprehensive world view that speaks to the nature of reality, the nature of human beings, our relationship to reality as well as ethics, politics and aesthetics. An individual's choice to raise children is personal and individual and Objectivism would argue that it is a moral choice to become a parent if you value raising children of your own, can afford to do so and are willing to accept the enormous life-long commitment and responsibility that doing so entails. A child's relationship to their parents, what rights children have and what a parent's responsibility is to their children are all things that Ayn Rand actually did speak about during her life, but the one thing I will grant you is that the fictional characters in her books were mostly childless and that probably had a lot to do with the fact that she herself was childless and so it wasn't something she felt moved to really talk about through her writings. As for "need to raise them if you want a society to continue,"... Objectivism certainly has a lot to say about an individual's relationship to "society", the very definition of "society" (an abstract concept referring broadly to a group of individuals) and it rejected the philosophical notion of "duty", not to be confused with "responsibility." Individuals have responsibilities, which they accept willingly. A parent, for example, has a responsibility to their children. Pet owners have responsibilities to their pets. People enter into contracts and relationships, make promises to one another and agree to work together collaboratively. All speaking to responsibilities. A duty, on the other hand, refers to an obligation imposed at birth to which someone has no ability to opt out. The duty to have children, for example. "If you want society a continue..." Objectivists would say "If you want children and a family and are prepared to accept the responsibility then do it for yourself. But don't take such a major life decision lightly, and you don't have a 'duty' to do so."
- lanfeust6 5y ago
  Had read AR as a teen and while I have strong disagreements I do notice a pattern of shallow understanding when she's being discussed in Liberal sphere. It's easier for leftists to attack her character than critique her ideas in good faith (and it's not like there's a lack of kookiness to address). The fringe vocal groups (who leave nothing untouched) also reserve similar treatment for some rationalists, which tells you a lot about their approach and worldview. Anything that doesn't necessarily embrace wholesale collectivism at the door, or is skeptical of Socialism, is treated as a threat. Rand is more explicitly hostile to it.
  - SavantIdiot 5y ago
    You're doing the same thing you are criticizing your straw-person leftists as doing. As a leftist, it is quite easy to critique her ideas in good faith: she disdains anyone who doesn't confirm to her idea of "productive", abhors the poor, and deifies the upper class as being the ultimate model of humanity. And that's not even being reductive.
    - slothtrop 5y ago
      > And that's not even being reductive. It would have to be somewhere near the dartboard to be reductive, this is just a weak projection. You mentioned the ease of criticizing her ideas and in the same breath, completely ignore them. The irony is lost on you.
  - AzzieElbab 5y ago
    That is exactly true. Not like AR had the right answers to everything but if Socialists hadn’t made a caricature out her the ideological movement she started could have developed into something intellectually competitive to progressivism. As opposed to harmless conservatism which by definition cannot compete and is only useful to slow things down
steelstraw 5y ago
Relevant comment from John Carmack a couple weeks ago: Atlas Shrugged popped up in a trend, reminding me of the remarkable level of vitriol against it. It is obviously grinding an anti-collectivist axe, and it can fairly be called cartoonish, but if you can't see its archetypes in the world around you, you aren't paying attention. I can easily understand people not liking the book, but the level of loathing that some show for it is odd, as if someone could go off on a rant and redline judge everyone who enjoyed the movie Wall Street as obviously terrible people. https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/1478389565094256642 https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/1478389565094256642
- mmcdermott 5y ago
  > I can easily understand people not liking the book, but the level of loathing that some show for it is odd, I had a similar reaction when I read Battlefield Earth a few years ago. It struck me as an overly-long, painfully generic scifi novel. It wasn't unique enough on any level to justify either love or hate.
- horns4lyfe 5y ago
  Most writers at the New Yorker are going to be the product of expensive liberal arts educations, and in those circles making fun of a strawman a of someone like Ayn Rand is as in-group as it gets. This is just social validation/click-seeking for a writer.
  - rchaud 5y ago
    One day they'll be collecting Social Security. Just like Ayn Rand. Perhaps they're not so different after all.
    - kbelder 5y ago
      Just as a side note, she didn't condemn collecting social security or other government subsidies. She condemned the existence of the program, but also said it's reasonable to collect benefits since they're taxed from you in the first place.
chaostheory 5y ago
Funny, but Rand would review some of them differently [Babe / Charlotte’s Web] Ingenious farmers find new ways to market their farms and products with innovative marketing. [Snow White] Seven dwarves give room and board in exchange for house keeping. They save her from a dangerous, overreaching government. It later translates into future potential political favors. [Beauty and the Beast] A woman rightfully chooses a man with more resources. [Up] Politically persecuted man overcomes adversity and claims a flying fortress of intelligent dogs. [The Muppets Take Manhattan] A capitalist Cinderella story with puppets minus the fairy tale magic.

31 points by talolard 5y ago

Ayn Rand could not have reviewed these movies, obviously, because in none of the reviews does the word “depraved” appear.

goatsneez 5y ago

I big miss at a humour in my view. Although, in general Im puzzled by the cliche portrayal of A.R.'s views as somewhat cold or inhumane. Though I did not read all her essays and works, Im familiar with the several ones which warrant no such trivialized characterization. On the contrary, she explicitly and implicitly said that "...reason and emotions are not contradictory or in opposition. It is only when we do not understand our emotions that such dichotomy appears". Any thinking individual can sign his name under this. And, that is why we have psychiatry industry, billion dollar self-help book industry, etc. On the other hand we have also recreational drugs and alcohol abuse, etc -- which is the point in case, when emotions take over faculty of reason to govern our decisions/life that ... destruction, destruction, destruction...

nerdponx 5y ago
https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/ayn-rand-writes-rudolph-the-red-nosed-reindeer https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/ayn-rand-writes-rudolph-...
- steveylang 5y ago
  Not surprisingly, much better satire from McSweeneys.
tgv 5y ago
That's not in contradiction of coldness or inhumanity. You can be an utter sociopath, and reason accordingly. The view of Rand comes from the certainly implied lack of empathy with the lesser fortunate. There's a quote where she expresses appreciation of a serial killer, because of this.
- horns4lyfe 5y ago
  I think the point is that when trying not to help the less fortunate, if we resort only to emotion without reason, we just ending up hurting them. Which can certainly be seen in plenty of situations today, IMO.
  - tgv 5y ago
    First, as an absolute statement, that's untrue, and who is going to help others without a bit of thinking? So not helping is almost certainly worse.
  - me_me_me 5y ago
    > if we resort only to emotion without reason If you walk down a street and see a musician play with donation box, if you were using only emotions without reason you'd give away your wallet and all rings and keys to the car. Its a nonsensical statement, nobody is driven only via emotions. But some are driven completely without emotions.
fullshark 5y ago
Agreed. I will say Ayn Rand's philosophy doesn't really have any room for parents/children in it, people are just fully realized individuals suddenly and without any childhood/adolescence/schooling. None of her characters have any interest in raising children. Children are dependents, and parents (or the state if you want to go that route) need to raise them if you want a society to continue, it's a pretty huge blind spot imo. I thought this was gonna point this out, but this is just tired "lol capitalists" jokes. The Ayn Rand school for tots joke from the Simpsons is a million times funnier and incisive imo as it targets this weakness of her philosophy and it's just a throwaway joke.
- gspencley 5y ago
  "I will say Ayn Rand's philosophy doesn't really have any room for parents/children in it," That sentence misses the very definition of philosophy and its purpose. It is true that Ayn Rand never had children and didn't talk much about parenting (although she did in various Q&A and also spoke about education - was very fond of Montessori for example), but that doesn't mean that Objectivism, which is Ayn Rand's philosophy, has no value to a parent or child. Ayn Rand offered Objectivism as a philosophy for an individual human being, to aid in living in the natural world as a human. It is a comprehensive world view that speaks to the nature of reality, the nature of human beings, our relationship to reality as well as ethics, politics and aesthetics. An individual's choice to raise children is personal and individual and Objectivism would argue that it is a moral choice to become a parent if you value raising children of your own, can afford to do so and are willing to accept the enormous life-long commitment and responsibility that doing so entails. A child's relationship to their parents, what rights children have and what a parent's responsibility is to their children are all things that Ayn Rand actually did speak about during her life, but the one thing I will grant you is that the fictional characters in her books were mostly childless and that probably had a lot to do with the fact that she herself was childless and so it wasn't something she felt moved to really talk about through her writings. As for "need to raise them if you want a society to continue,"... Objectivism certainly has a lot to say about an individual's relationship to "society", the very definition of "society" (an abstract concept referring broadly to a group of individuals) and it rejected the philosophical notion of "duty", not to be confused with "responsibility." Individuals have responsibilities, which they accept willingly. A parent, for example, has a responsibility to their children. Pet owners have responsibilities to their pets. People enter into contracts and relationships, make promises to one another and agree to work together collaboratively. All speaking to responsibilities. A duty, on the other hand, refers to an obligation imposed at birth to which someone has no ability to opt out. The duty to have children, for example. "If you want society a continue..." Objectivists would say "If you want children and a family and are prepared to accept the responsibility then do it for yourself. But don't take such a major life decision lightly, and you don't have a 'duty' to do so."
lanfeust6 5y ago
Had read AR as a teen and while I have strong disagreements I do notice a pattern of shallow understanding when she's being discussed in Liberal sphere. It's easier for leftists to attack her character than critique her ideas in good faith (and it's not like there's a lack of kookiness to address). The fringe vocal groups (who leave nothing untouched) also reserve similar treatment for some rationalists, which tells you a lot about their approach and worldview. Anything that doesn't necessarily embrace wholesale collectivism at the door, or is skeptical of Socialism, is treated as a threat. Rand is more explicitly hostile to it.
- SavantIdiot 5y ago
  You're doing the same thing you are criticizing your straw-person leftists as doing. As a leftist, it is quite easy to critique her ideas in good faith: she disdains anyone who doesn't confirm to her idea of "productive", abhors the poor, and deifies the upper class as being the ultimate model of humanity. And that's not even being reductive.
  - slothtrop 5y ago
    > And that's not even being reductive. It would have to be somewhere near the dartboard to be reductive, this is just a weak projection. You mentioned the ease of criticizing her ideas and in the same breath, completely ignore them. The irony is lost on you.
- AzzieElbab 5y ago
  That is exactly true. Not like AR had the right answers to everything but if Socialists hadn’t made a caricature out her the ideological movement she started could have developed into something intellectually competitive to progressivism. As opposed to harmless conservatism which by definition cannot compete and is only useful to slow things down

steelstraw 5y ago

Relevant comment from John Carmack a couple weeks ago: Atlas Shrugged popped up in a trend, reminding me of the remarkable level of vitriol against it. It is obviously grinding an anti-collectivist axe, and it can fairly be called cartoonish, but if you can't see its archetypes in the world around you, you aren't paying attention. I can easily understand people not liking the book, but the level of loathing that some show for it is odd, as if someone could go off on a rant and redline judge everyone who enjoyed the movie Wall Street as obviously terrible people. https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/1478389565094256642 https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/1478389565094256642

mmcdermott 5y ago
> I can easily understand people not liking the book, but the level of loathing that some show for it is odd, I had a similar reaction when I read Battlefield Earth a few years ago. It struck me as an overly-long, painfully generic scifi novel. It wasn't unique enough on any level to justify either love or hate.
horns4lyfe 5y ago
Most writers at the New Yorker are going to be the product of expensive liberal arts educations, and in those circles making fun of a strawman a of someone like Ayn Rand is as in-group as it gets. This is just social validation/click-seeking for a writer.
- rchaud 5y ago
  One day they'll be collecting Social Security. Just like Ayn Rand. Perhaps they're not so different after all.
  - kbelder 5y ago
    Just as a side note, she didn't condemn collecting social security or other government subsidies. She condemned the existence of the program, but also said it's reasonable to collect benefits since they're taxed from you in the first place.

chaostheory 5y ago

Funny, but Rand would review some of them differently [Babe / Charlotte’s Web] Ingenious farmers find new ways to market their farms and products with innovative marketing. [Snow White] Seven dwarves give room and board in exchange for house keeping. They save her from a dangerous, overreaching government. It later translates into future potential political favors. [Beauty and the Beast] A woman rightfully chooses a man with more resources. [Up] Politically persecuted man overcomes adversity and claims a flying fortress of intelligent dogs. [The Muppets Take Manhattan] A capitalist Cinderella story with puppets minus the fairy tale magic.