Ayn Rand coming to the big screen!
- Thread starter Maverick74
- Start date
Found this excerpt on the net. It's a year old.
Author Chris Sciabarra reports in "The Altlasphere" that "Brad Pitt, mega-star of the new film, Troy, which opens nationwide today, told interviewer Charlie Rose that Oliver Stone--yes, he, of the left, who admires Fidel Castro--was still interested in directing a new version of 'The Fountainhead.' As he has done on other occasions, Pitt talked glowingly of the science and aesthetics of architecture.
Rose asked him if he knew of any way to combine his passion for architecture with his passion for acting; he wondered if there was any 'story of a great architect' that might inspire Pitt. 'That would go back to The Fountainhead,' Pitt replied. Rose wondered if Pitt would even consider re-making it. Pitt said that the book is 'so dense and complex, it would have to be a six-hour movie ... I don't know how you do it under four, and not lose, really lose, what Ayn Rand was after.' But he affirmed his profound interest to star in a re-make, and cited Oliver Stone's own interest in directing it as a feature film."
Author Chris Sciabarra reports in "The Altlasphere" that "Brad Pitt, mega-star of the new film, Troy, which opens nationwide today, told interviewer Charlie Rose that Oliver Stone--yes, he, of the left, who admires Fidel Castro--was still interested in directing a new version of 'The Fountainhead.' As he has done on other occasions, Pitt talked glowingly of the science and aesthetics of architecture.
Rose asked him if he knew of any way to combine his passion for architecture with his passion for acting; he wondered if there was any 'story of a great architect' that might inspire Pitt. 'That would go back to The Fountainhead,' Pitt replied. Rose wondered if Pitt would even consider re-making it. Pitt said that the book is 'so dense and complex, it would have to be a six-hour movie ... I don't know how you do it under four, and not lose, really lose, what Ayn Rand was after.' But he affirmed his profound interest to star in a re-make, and cited Oliver Stone's own interest in directing it as a feature film."
There are three major areas of Philosophy: Ethics, Metaphysics, and Epistemology. Examples are of these are: Moral problems (Ethics), problems rising from the debates about freewill, personal identity or intelligence (Metaphysics), and inquiries about the scope and limits of human knowledge (Epistemology).
I guess I should have been more careful with the distinction I made.
You see, I don't agree and I will tell you why. Marx is describing the world as he sees it and tries to fit a (Political) Philosophy to that world - "Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains." Rand on the other hand, creates these creatures that no one recognizes as heroic and romantic figures, and then uses the very definitions that she makes to sell you that very system! Do you see the difference? It is not an explanation through an understanding of the human condition and our relation to the universe as an inanimate object and to each other, but more of a dreamt up Utopia which she associates with "Philosophy." That is why you see her often described as a cult figure and less as a scientist/philosopher - the scientist/philosopher describes what is, he seeks to explain, or to bring it down to one word, describes how, while she deals with the why, which is usually left to saints.
"Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains" is a statement that entices a how answer. How is he in chains? Because he does not control the means of production which produces inequality amongst the classes (creates the classes ?) Notice that Marx is not interested in why...
[BTW, most people see Marx's statement as Communistic because it was twisted by Communists to make us all into slaves serving some central figure - God and Kings are replaced by the state. To me Marx's statement is the most Capitalistic statement ever made!!!!!!! When I see that statement, I think of the small business owner!!!!! How? The small business owner controls the means of his own production.]
nitro
Interesting reading:
http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/846/marx.html
e.g.,
"...Central to the liberal worldview was a belief in raising the level of production and productivity through the application of science and technology. Scottish and English political economistsâfrom Adam Smith in the late 18th century to David Ricardo in the early 19th to lesser lights like James Mill in Marx's formative yearsâwere leading intellectual representatives of liberalism. They maintained that the wealth of nationsâto use the title of Adam Smith's classic and seminal workâwould be maximized by the institutional framework of a competitive market economy made up of a multiplicity of capitalist entrepreneurs. In order to maximize profits and avoid losses (and potential bankruptcy), such entrepreneurs would supposedly be compelled to continually reduce the costs of production through technical innovation.
What I want to emphasize here is that in this period it was liberalism, not communism or socialism, which was identified as centrally concerned with and committed to increasing what Marx later called "the forces of production." The intellectual hegemony of liberalism as a doctrine of economic production was a major factor that later caused Marx to write Capital. Throughout Capital, there are polemical arguments against David Ricardo, John Stuart Mill and other economic ideologists of the new bourgeois order. Some years ago, a perceptive Polish ex-Stalinist intellectual observed that Marx was the first major left-wing thinker who took on liberalism on its own chosen terrain, that of political economy... "
nitro
http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/846/marx.html
e.g.,
"...Central to the liberal worldview was a belief in raising the level of production and productivity through the application of science and technology. Scottish and English political economistsâfrom Adam Smith in the late 18th century to David Ricardo in the early 19th to lesser lights like James Mill in Marx's formative yearsâwere leading intellectual representatives of liberalism. They maintained that the wealth of nationsâto use the title of Adam Smith's classic and seminal workâwould be maximized by the institutional framework of a competitive market economy made up of a multiplicity of capitalist entrepreneurs. In order to maximize profits and avoid losses (and potential bankruptcy), such entrepreneurs would supposedly be compelled to continually reduce the costs of production through technical innovation.
What I want to emphasize here is that in this period it was liberalism, not communism or socialism, which was identified as centrally concerned with and committed to increasing what Marx later called "the forces of production." The intellectual hegemony of liberalism as a doctrine of economic production was a major factor that later caused Marx to write Capital. Throughout Capital, there are polemical arguments against David Ricardo, John Stuart Mill and other economic ideologists of the new bourgeois order. Some years ago, a perceptive Polish ex-Stalinist intellectual observed that Marx was the first major left-wing thinker who took on liberalism on its own chosen terrain, that of political economy... "
nitro
This reflects thinking of the 19th century, root of all political socialist/liberal misery of humankind ever since. It will also be the eradication of Western civilization if it doesn't come to its senses soon.
Reference for modern theory of value:
'Human Action' by Ludwig von Mises (Vienna School of Economics)
nononsense
Foundations of western civilization:
-Slavery
-Genocide
-Sexism
-Class struggle with minimal upward mobility
-Wealthy and Powerful make law
-Emperialism
Yep, that's what made western civilizaion "great."
-Slavery
-Genocide
-Sexism
-Class struggle with minimal upward mobility
-Wealthy and Powerful make law
-Emperialism
Yep, that's what made western civilizaion "great."
Zz,
Yep! Creep out of your Neanderthal hole. Try to pick something up from them humans:
'Wisdom of the West', Bertrand Russell.
I see you didn't counter my argument....
No surprise, can't argue with history.
No surprise, can't argue with history.
Quote from nononsense:
Zz,
Yep! Creep out of your Neanderthal hole. Try to pick something up from them humans:
'Wisdom of the West', Bertrand Russell.
Ann was a genius.