A philosophical question. . .

[Kester Pelagius]

Long story short I'm over at the IMDB board for Legend of the Seeker.  A fan of the novels is fairly agitated about the differences between the books and series and calls Goodkind a "sell out" and yadayadayada.

But that got me thinking.  I replied with this:

"As I understand it Goodkind claims to be a Objectivist, meaning he follows the philosophy of Objectivism as laid out by Ayn Rand. To which one has to ask. .

Can an Objectivist sell-out?

Remember this philosophy hold selfishness as a virtue. This is the same philosophical tenent Crowley expressed as: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law". "

That was either a incredibly profound realization or an incredibly stupid observation brought on by sleep deprivation.  Anyone here versed in the basics of Objectvisim?

[WilliamWeird1313]

I don't really think you can "sell out" if you're a follower of Ayn Rand's philosophies. For a minute there I was gonna say that the closest thing that one could do to sell out would be to forgo something that would benefit them in order to appear unselfish and/or placate their critic(s). But before my brain even finished that thought, it was already realizing that... if you did that, if you bypassed self-benefit for the sake of someone's opinions of you, then you're doing that because you want that person's opinions of you to change, which means that it is STILL something that benefits you. Get what I mean? Like... all your doing is trading one self-benefit for another self-benefit. The whole core of Objectivism is about motivations. Really, you NEVER do ANYTHING you don't WANT to do on SOME level. Even if you're doing something you hate, like taking a math test or standing in line at the D.M.V., you're doing it because you want the carrot at the end of that stick, thus even things that p**s you off or bore you and seem to be chores are really "selfish" acts done for self-benefit. You take that math test so you can get your degree, which you do want. You stand in line at the D.M.V. so you can get your specially printed vanity plate that you want, the one that reads "976 EVIL."
I think a lot of people (I don't mean you) misunderstand Rand's beliefs and sort of balk as soon as they hear the word "selfishness." Really, Rand's all about REDEFINING what "selfishness" means and the connotations that accompany it. Essentially, every act is a selfish one. For example, even someone who (let's go into cheesy action movie territory here), let's say, takes a bullet and dies for the person they love. Yes, that is an act of "selfless self-sacrifice" but it is ALSO selfish in a way (Rand's redefined way) because you're doing something to save someone YOU love and this act gets you what you want (in this case, what you want being that loved one to continue living). Even if you took a bullet for someone you hate, you still took that bullet for a reason, perhaps because, even if you hate 'em, you don't think they deserve to die, or because you feel very strongly that diving in front of that shot is the right thing to do. If you have a sense of duty, then your act fulfills and satisfies your sense of duty, thus... self-benefit.
You could really break down just about any act so that it is in-line with Rand's principals, so it's virtually impossible to truly "sell out."

[Jack]

I think the Fountainhead was all about an architect who refused to compromise his principles, even if it meant passing up many profitable jobs he could have otherwise had.  I believe the point was that selling out leads to mediocrity, and remaining true to your principles may make things harder in the short term, but leads to the greatest rewards in the long term.


I dunno, it's been years since I read Rand's books.  Atlas Shrugged was my favorite 

[Kester Pelagius]

Some ineresting and thought provoking posts.  I'm still perpelexed, but then again one could argue that Ayn Rand's philosophy was a "borrowing" (the less kind might suggest bastardization) of principles cherry picked and then reinterpreted from a host of other philosophies, not the least of which would be certain forms of Nihilism (or so I've read).  As I'm not well versed in these sorts of things I humbly digress. .

I think the Fountainhead was all about an architect who refused to compromise his principles, even if it meant passing up many profitable jobs he could have otherwise had.  I believe the point was that selling out leads to mediocrity, and remaining true to your principles may make things harder in the short term, but leads to the greatest rewards in the long term.

Ah but aren't an objectivist's principles of the moment, or rather more shifting with the circumstance, and thus always defined by what is best for aggrandizement of self?

Thus if an objectivist thought it was in their self's best interest to do what others might percieve as "selling out" if doing so benefited them. . .

 

[WilliamWeird1313]

If you're interested in the subject, Rand's book "The Virtue Of Selfishness" is a great read (if you haven't checked it out already).

[Jack]

Ah but aren't an objectivist's principles of the moment, or rather more shifting with the circumstance, and thus always defined by what is best for aggrandizement of self?

Thus if an objectivist thought it was in their self's best interest to do what others might percieve as "selling out" if doing so benefited them. . .

 

Well, going by my 15 year old memories, I think an Objectivist film maker would be much more opposed to what is commonly called "selling out" than a non-Objectivist.  Of course some compromises have to be made, unless they're financing the entire project themselves, but as far as throwing away any principles or personal dignity just to get the thing on screen, in any form at all, I think that would make a person a very bad Objectivist.  On the other hand, numerous changes always have to be made when transferring something from a book to a movie, as movies can't be 9 hours long and internal dialog really comes off poorly in film.  People love to forget that stuff when criticizing movies based on books.  And there's certainly no law of Objectivism that states that a person's artistic tastes have to remain static over their entire lifetime.