Pajiba

So "happiness" can also be defined as "post-orgasmic." While it is certainly true that those who are post-orgasmic are happy, that hardly constitutes a viable personal philosophy.

Wow. So I hop over to Pajiba this morning and get greeted with that picture. Previously I hadn't believed in spontaneous ejaculation. Huh.

Wait, was there an article there, too?

So, Rand's world views are contradictory, conservatives are using a shitty book to hate on Obama, and this mini-series/movie has a 5% chance of being made.

This article was so empty that it actually sucked valuable things out of my brain to fill its own pretentious vaccuum.

Fanx abott Durbstin^@ufuvfdstrviyckcuvfl

Admin, you've also got to give props for a single photograph that can show ass, boobs, AND face. That's not easy.

admin, I love Charlize, much. The first movie I ever saw her in was "3 Days in the Valley", which I freaking love, it has her in a sexy cat fight with Terri Hatcher. Go watch it. Now.

True story: I have a friend from college who is, indeed, an Objectivist. He wasn't a jerk about it, in fact he's an awesome guy. If anything, it was interesting hearing him talk about Objectivism and defending it against whichever of our friends decided to intellectually antagonize him that day.

Not So True Story: I heard that Newt Gingrich has copies of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead in his bathroom that he masturbates to. Let me tell you, it sure as hell isn't a picture of Ayn Rand he jerks it to. Yeech.

Ah. A post that inspires both philosophy and ejaculation with or without masturbation. A glorious day, indeed.

"Atlas Shrugged" is an ugly, ugly book that I read (or at least skim through) again every once in a while for some bizarre reason -- possibly akin to the reason a Christian-leaning agnostic will return to reading the Bible over and over in some futile, monotonous search for meaning in his barren, Godless existence.

I want to believe in Objectivism. I really do. But while the book creates sets up an interesting argument it never really sells the point to anyone with half an ounce of critical reasoning ability.

Rand never seems to acknowledge the hypocrisy in making her protagonists both ardent self-serving capitalists and, at the same time, noble, self-sacrificing idealists. In particular the most idealistic characters deliberately forgo wealth, power, and stability -- and, apparently, repeatedly puts themselves in physical danger -- in order to prove their point. Basically just like every erstwhile People's hero of the Marxist movement.

And I'm not sure what to make of the central female character being a meandering slut, except maybe that Rand liked a little something on the side now and then.

The antagonists of "Atlas Shrugged" are universally either weak, shortsighted, and incompetent toadies or weak, shortsighted, incompetent, and power-hungry leeches, which of course is the kind of typical propaganda-ist device commonly employed by fascists of any political stripe. And the most pathetic device -- the hidden community populated by only right-minded citizens and protected by superior technology -- is the sort of thing most appealing to the undersocialized, overweight, undersexed, acne-ridden, adolescent Hitler who spends his high school class time filling notebooks with a meticulously taxonomy, in very small print with no margins, of the right- and wrong- minded people in his world (especially cheerleader Bitsy and her enormous, sweater-straining rack).

Overall, "The Fountainhead" is a much more elegant novel, and recommended reading. "Atlas Shrugged" is worth reading if you're only a very fast, selective reader who realized that you can skip the historically boring chapters of "Les Miserables" without losing any of the story, and you have a few days to kill on philosophical tripe. It could be made into a movie/ mini-series but, even competently produced, it would be to political thrillers what Drew Barrymore is to romantic comedies.

I always thought happiness is a warm gun...

I really enjoyed the fountainhead. Roark was a recluse, kind of. and Dominique was a bitch-slut, kind of... there was a vague-ness that is KEY for me for all books....

But then atlas shrugged... super suredness, 50 page speech, 2 SECOND sex scene with galt in a train tunnel. Fuck she pissed me off.... plus, it's all a metaphor for her crazy marriage/open affair with her intellectual protege. That lady was brilliant for like 20 seconds in her 90 year life.

Haha... the only thing funnier than a conservative trying to justify their political philosophy is a conservative trying to justify their political philosophy with Ayn Rand. Don't even get me started on her epistemology :D

"Happiness is That State of Consciousness Which Proceeds from the Achievement of One's Values" is about as awkward to mine ears as Lohan's infamous "Be Adequite" speech from a while back.

I have never been able to plod through any of Rand's tomes despite trying, but thanks to Neodiogenes, now I fake it with the best of 'em and intelligently reference them over cocktails! Thanks for saving me countless hours that will instead go toward reading my geeky epic fantasy novels of equal or greater length. Cheers to you, good sir!

No, thank you Leigh. You've been a wonderful audience.

I do two shows a night. Be sure to tip your waitress.

Fo sho, Figgy. Fo, sho.

On another note: There really oughtta be some kind of Pajiban Principles or something. I don't believe in shutting anyone down or further restricting the lurkers that already feel insecure about posting, but for land's sakes people - post anything OTHER than 'Oh really?' about other people's perspectives. I mean, go ahead, feel the hell out of that 'Oh, Really' but make sure to back it up with why. We DO want to know. Raging against each other's philosophies is kind of a thing around these parts, and that is good.

But sitting in your chair at home like a spider in its web chuckling over your superiority is something you can keep to yourself. It only illustrates very clearly that you are protecting yourself from criticism, while offering it as your sole input. Not cool.

/rant.

Atlas Shrugged is the only book I've ever read, or rather attempted to read, that made me truly want to go to Cliff's notes. As an English major that should make me a bit ashamed, but I didn't succumb to temptation. However, I never finished the book either.

Gawd almighty what a tooth-grinding bore! Or boor (boar?). Bored.

Sorry, sometimes I forget where I am. Um... Whee, Obama!

Ahamos-

Ayn Rand fucking hated altruism. Seriously, in The Fountainhead, there are pages of vitriolic prose lambasting the very concept of altruism. Basically, she thinks people should help themselves. That's pretty much what I gleaned from it. She abhors the whole concept of altruism, and seemed to think it was evil.

Now, maybe she defined it differently than most, but however she defined it, "altruism" was a dirty, nasty word among Objectivists.

BTW, lots of socialist friends of mine are big fans of her books and somehow get a pro-socialist interpretation from it. Not sure how that works, but anecdotally it seems to be the case.

No, happiness is being a pragmatist that never reads anything by Ayn Rand.

Rand is right about capitalism; it is the most productive, moral system ever created by man. Capitalism gets blamed far too often for problems that were created by government intervention and lack of a true free market. Most people who disagree with Rand can't even explain what they specifically disagree with because they either never read her works, or don't understand them. But then again most of these people have no principles of their own, and have leftist philosophy ingrained in them, making it impossible for these collectivists to see the irrational of their subjective thinking. Rand may have been a little subjective herself, but the basis of her philosophy is to focus on the object of thought; which the only way to obtain reason is to engage in specific debate, something that Rand often excluded herself from. Rand was human though, and I look at her philosophy as a guide for the "individual" who has desire to shape and move the world. It shows the value of having principles and not abandoning them for the sake of security; and it shows through example how the free market allows the individual to be the most productive that he can be. One side note for the Leftist's who are going to get on me about the free market; people will give more by there own accord than they will through direct force. E.G. Americans gave 10 times more in foreign aid last year than the U.S. government. Collectivist automatically view man as a dangerous contemptuous animal, and that we can't trust man to do the right thing, so therefore we must do right by force. But how can man discover that he is not a dangerous contemptuous animal if we don't allow him to do so. Most leftist also don't understand that the people who created communism and socialism are the same elite capitalists that they claim to hate. The League of the Just commissioned Carl Marx to write the Manifesto; an elite capitalist secret society, for the purpose of creating a threat to capitalism so they could continue to consolidate the assets of the world by invading communist countries. Leftists are simply playing into the hands of the people they claim to hate. Doesn't surprise me though, they don't teach civics in school anymore(thank you centralized education), and instead of teaching economics they teach centralized economic planning; so instead of our schools producing economists, they are producing regulators(state run capitalism is the definition of fascism).