Despite all the libertarians in the nation selflessly relinquishing their Ron Paul gold for evil paper money so they could buy a movie ticket, Atlas Shrugged: Part I only made $1.7 million in its opening weekend, coming in at fourteenth place, right behind statist epic
What went wrong here? Crappy source material, crappy actors, screenwriters and directors ... this should have been a blockbuster. I assume "Part III" will be pretty much be that 75 page speech? If they do it in 3D, it just might work.
Alan Greenspan was once a logical positivist, what happened? He went from being an empiricist to being someone that believes that human nature follows rules laid down by a mannish Russian emigre who stole all of her best bits from Nietzsche, but understood none of them.
Soon the rich will tour African rape zones in floating zeppelins like they do now on safari, old-man spooge spilling off the side and the screams of sex slaves overhead.
Ayn Rand is a philosopher in the same way that a girl with a crush on Justin Bieber is a rock star. There is nothing philosophical in this movie that was not said before and in a much more coherent manner. Every saying, speech and aside is but borrowed - ahem, stolen - aphorisms from Nietzsche convoluted by a conniving ego that substitutes the cheap emotionality of melodrama all the while purporting to be a philosophy for the rational. Rationalizing is not "being rational" and everything she argues is so far removed from Rawl's Rational Choice Theory or even Nozick's Minarchism as to read more in the vein of a parody akin to Moore's Utopia, as anyone who has read any other significant political philosopher in the past 100 years will find this impossible to digest at face value. Misuse, misunderstanding and sheer ignorance in the use of philosophical and lay terms alike and this is not the even the only beguiling failure to cohere her lionized character's soliloquies to a framework that would be recognizable as a philosophy but it makes for an excellent excuse to stop worrying about it as a serious intellectual endeavor.
Was required to read this for a class in political science, I've never heard a professor laugh so hard in my life, this is when someone asked if Objectitivism had ever been reviewed in a reputable journal.
I was going to go see it, because I'm a fan of Atlas. But then somebody told me Atlas wasn't actually depicted in the film, so I said "fuck that."
What went wrong here? Crappy source material, crappy actors, screenwriters and directors ... this should have been a blockbuster. I assume "Part III" will be pretty much be that 75 page speech? If they do it in 3D, it just might work.
It used to be laughed out of the universities (I graduated in 1993). It is being taught now. Seriously.
Alan Greenspan was once a logical positivist, what happened? He went from being an empiricist to being someone that believes that human nature follows rules laid down by a mannish Russian emigre who stole all of her best bits from Nietzsche, but understood none of them.
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wik..." target="_blank">" rel="nofollow noopener" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism">http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...
I heard the trailer was cut because of a budget impasse.
Soon the rich will tour African rape zones in floating zeppelins like they do now on safari, old-man spooge spilling off the side and the screams of sex slaves overhead.
Ayn Rand is a philosopher in the same way that a girl with a crush on Justin Bieber is a rock star. There is nothing philosophical in this movie that was not said before and in a much more coherent manner. Every saying, speech and aside is but borrowed - ahem, stolen - aphorisms from Nietzsche convoluted by a conniving ego that substitutes the cheap emotionality of melodrama all the while purporting to be a philosophy for the rational. Rationalizing is not &quot;being rational&quot; and everything she argues is so far removed from Rawl&#039;s Rational Choice Theory or even Nozick&#039;s Minarchism as to read more in the vein of a parody akin to Moore&#039;s Utopia, as anyone who has read any other significant political philosopher in the past 100 years will find this impossible to digest at face value. Misuse, misunderstanding and sheer ignorance in the use of philosophical and lay terms alike and this is not the even the only beguiling failure to cohere her lionized character&#039;s soliloquies to a framework that would be recognizable as a philosophy but it makes for an excellent excuse to stop worrying about it as a serious intellectual endeavor.
Was required to read this for a class in political science, I&#039;ve never heard a professor laugh so hard in my life, this is when someone asked if Objectitivism had ever been reviewed in a reputable journal.
market forces LOL
I was going to go see it, because I&#039;m a fan of Atlas. But then somebody told me Atlas wasn&#039;t actually depicted in the film, so I said &quot;fuck that.&quot;