User Controls
atlas tugged
-
2019-09-02 at 6:50 PM UTC
Originally posted by DietPiano Yes, but what and I think Obbe have been saying here for quite a while is that conjuring up an archetype to live up to is futile because there is no way to "live up" to something that doesn't exist, because it doean't exist. You simply ARE the 'perfect person' you want to be, or you aren't.
You don't just conjure up an archetype, the concept of the archetype is real. Do you admire some people? Do you hate some people? Why? Because they are the closest approximation of the archetype you value or not value. -
2019-09-02 at 7:01 PM UTC
Originally posted by DietPiano You simply ARE the 'perfect person' you want to be, or you aren't.
Too deterministic; didn't accept.
Originally posted by DietPiano I think it very somber if for myself would I want strive to be anything or anybody but myself.
Okay, I have not actually read any Ayn Rand yet myself, but... And I'm extrapolating a bit here, admittedly...
Rand is seen as one of the "prophets" of contemporary libertarianism, right?
And, I used to be rather libertarian myself. I was a full-blown an-cap about ten years ago. I'm still kinda "an" without the "cap", libertarian socialist I suppose (if such a thing is even possible outside of paper).
If Rand's position in atlas tugged is anything like how I envision libertarianism, isn't the whole point that literally anyone can change? (Say, into some archetypal vision of perfection, for example; better themselves - rags to riches - etc).
If not, it's kind of a psychopathic view of humanity.
Then again, maybe that was what started shifting me leftwards in the first place. -
2019-09-02 at 7:19 PM UTCTo answer your question, yes it is. If you want to better yourself than simply be better. Bettering yourself doesn't mean that you need to try to be something other than yourself, which is impossible.
That being said, it is not reasonable to be expect a person to be able to climb out of a well without a ladder, nor to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps when they do not have any boots. -
2019-09-02 at 7:28 PM UTC
Originally posted by DietPiano To answer your question, yes it is. If you want to better yourself than simply be better. Bettering yourself doesn't mean that you need to try to be something other than yourself, which is impossible.
That being said, it is not reasonable to be expect a person to be able to climb out of a well without a ladder, nor to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps when they do not have any boots.
First off, I legit thought the whole "raise yourself by the bootstraps" thing was the literal definition of libertarianism.
But also, why not build your own ladder?
In fact, "building your own ladder" has literally been my philosophical stance for dealing with life and society and so forth for my entire adult life.
The fact that nobody has direct insight into anothers' mind, though, is precisely why I have expanded my personal ideology towards a certain degree of empathy for others...
But I still, at the center of it all, believe that literally anyone can, if they set their minds and motivation to it, ameliorate their current lot in life.
But because I also retain a certain degree of skepticism regarding free will, I'll toss a few tools and parts to build a ladder down that well just in case (when I can, at least). -
2019-09-02 at 8:16 PM UTC
Originally posted by gadzooks For real tho, why write a thousand page novel to espouse a relatively simply philosophy?
Big long books are all about worming your way into your reader's brain and bringing them along with you and your bullshit thought process.
They are only necessary as anyone with any brains would reject the sick philosophy of these wordy fucks immediately if introduced to them with a brief, crib-notes version.
By feeding you the bullshit in small doses they want to lead you along the path, which ends with you not even noticing as they squat over you and shit their turd right down your throat - like the sick, bizarre, turbo kikey ending to Grapes of Wrath.
Those who write to be judged on the merits of their own ideas, and understood, are few and far between.
The rest are hoping to get you acclimated to the taste of their shit, one wafted fart at a time. -
2019-09-02 at 10:10 PM UTC
Originally posted by gadzooks First off, I legit thought the whole "raise yourself by the bootstraps" thing was the literal definition of libertarianism.
But also, why not build your own ladder?
In fact, "building your own ladder" has literally been my philosophical stance for dealing with life and society and so forth for my entire adult life.
The fact that nobody has direct insight into anothers' mind, though, is precisely why I have expanded my personal ideology towards a certain degree of empathy for others…
But I still, at the center of it all, believe that literally anyone can, if they set their minds and motivation to it, ameliorate their current lot in life.
But because I also retain a certain degree of skepticism regarding free will, I'll toss a few tools and parts to build a ladder down that well just in case (when I can, at least).
I dont know why you didn't seem to understand what I said really.
How are you going to build a ladder when you have no materials and tools, like when you are at the bottom of a well? If you don't have any boots, how are you to pull yourself up by your bootstraps? I am being literal here.
I recall that Martin Luther King said this same thing pretty much when talking about why black people literally couldn't rise the ranks like white people, because how is a negroe born on a dirt floor supposed to "Just go to MIT and get a degree in chemical engineering and become a millionaire lol"
Yeah, as if a negroe in 1960 can go to a white college, which is a TOOL much like a bootstrap, as is a loan for college, as is a public school that teaches you things like a white school does, as is having parents that arent addicted to alcohol that dont really raise you like white parents do. Some people simply do not have the tools to succeed like others, which is why I say one cannot pull themselves up by their bootstraps when they have no boots. -
2019-09-02 at 10:42 PM UTC
Originally posted by gadzooks If Rand's position in atlas tugged is anything like how I envision libertarianism, isn't the whole point that literally anyone can change? (Say, into some archetypal vision of perfection, for example; better themselves - rags to riches - etc).
Rand, and I'm not the first person to notice this, was extremely bipolar on this and it's one of a few points where she's basically incoherent under analysis. Rand definitely holds to this kind of idea that you "own your own destiny" or whatever, her writing is filled to the brim with the with rags to riches narrative, rugged independent characters scrapping their way into achievement. On the other hand, ironically, her fiction also absolutely reeks of essentialism. Fountainhead is a great example of this where very early on it becomes imminently clear that there are two classes of people in the book: the moral elect comprised of Rorak, Dominique, and Wynand who are mysterious psuedo-complex, and intrinsically more competent than everyone else. No character ever moves between the ruggedly independent and morally superior class and the herd-mentality untermensch plebeians. The best the under-class can hope for is to realize their folly in a contrived existential crisis and then exit stage left. The over-class are, and I believe these are actual adjectives used to describe them, "immovable" and "untouchable".
To Rand it seems that anyone can forge their own way and achieve greatness, but only if they're endowed with the magical and rare quality of being autisticly unaware that society is a thing and unexplained genius and talent at everything, including, and quite awkwardly depicted, sex.
The plot synopsis of Atlas Tugged is more or less "good sexy non-herd people build trains and live in utopia, everyone else suffers until they realize they can't live without the sexy moral elect, wealthy capitalists triumph over everyone else because god knows nothing can ever be accomplished without massive wealth inequality, the end".
So yeah, you can take Rand as slightly more modern Horatio Alger if, and only if, you view yourself as the magically talented and hardworking and sexy moral elite (which of course every fan of Rand does). Otherwise she's an essentialist autocrat who wraps herself in an imagined philosophy of meritocracy.
-
2019-09-02 at 11:45 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Rand, and I'm not the first person to notice this, was extremely bipolar on this and it's one of a few points where she's basically incoherent under analysis. Rand definitely holds to this kind of idea that you "own your own destiny" or whatever, her writing is filled to the brim with the with rags to riches narrative, rugged independent characters scrapping their way into achievement. On the other hand, ironically, her fiction also absolutely reeks of essentialism. Fountainhead is a great example of this where very early on it becomes imminently clear that there are two classes of people in the book: the moral elect comprised of Rorak, Dominique, and Wynand who are mysterious psuedo-complex, and intrinsically more competent than everyone else. No character ever moves between the ruggedly independent and morally superior class and the herd-mentality untermensch plebeians. The best the under-class can hope for is to realize their folly in a contrived existential crisis and then exit stage left. The over-class are, and I believe these are actual adjectives used to describe them, "immovable" and "untouchable".
To Rand it seems that anyone can forge their own way and achieve greatness, but only if they're endowed with the magical and rare quality of being autisticly unaware that society is a thing and unexplained genius and talent at everything, including, and quite awkwardly depicted, sex.
The plot synopsis of Atlas Tugged is more or less "good sexy non-herd people build trains and live in utopia, everyone else suffers until they realize they can't live without the sexy moral elect, wealthy capitalists triumph over everyone else because god knows nothing can ever be accomplished without massive wealth inequality, the end".
So yeah, you can take Rand as slightly more modern Horatio Alger if, and only if, you view yourself as the magically talented and hardworking and sexy moral elite (which of course every fan of Rand does). Otherwise she's an essentialist autocrat who wraps herself in an imagined philosophy of meritocracy.
You did good today. Seriously, that was some good insight.
I don't in all seriousness have anything supraficial against you besides not even attempting to fix Diet Yellow >:(
Yeah, it bugs me that she was unable to write about a character that made a single mistake that was good enough to be saved into the utopia pretty much. There is no middle ground.
Also, when she fucking kills somebody for "not being worthy of being alive" or something because he couldn't answer Dagny's question quickly enough was pretty vicious.
