Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

It's Banned Books Week. Go Read One To Spite Sarah.

123578

Posts

  • an_altan_alt Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    GrimReaper wrote: »
    I actually keep meaning to getting around to reading this.

    Do it. It's been a really long time since I read it, but I remember being absolutely fascinated. Also, don't wiki/google anything about it until you're done.

    Pony wrote:
    I think that the internet has been for years on the path to creating what is essentially an electronic Necronomicon: A collection of blasphemous unrealities so perverse that to even glimpse at its contents, if but for a moment, is to irrevocably forfeit a portion of your sanity.
    Xbox - PearlBlueS0ul, Steam
  • RentRent I'm always right Fuckin' deal with itRegistered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Oh yeah, The Stand. God that's a great, great book. It's like LOTR if LOTR didn't suck and go off on stupid tangents about things no-one cares about.

  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Rent wrote: »
    Oh yeah, The Stand. God that's a great, great book. It's like LOTR if LOTR didn't suck and go off on stupid tangents about things no-one cares about.

    Are you describing LOTR or Stephen King?

  • RentRent I'm always right Fuckin' deal with itRegistered User regular
    edited October 2008
    LOTR. In my opinion, any book which is "optimally" read by having a geneology whilst you're reading so you just remember who the fuck is talking is not a good fucking book.

  • INeedNoSaltINeedNoSalt Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Rent wrote: »
    Oh yeah, The Stand. God that's a great, great book. It's like LOTR if LOTR didn't suck and go off on stupid tangents about things no-one cares about.

    It was all the butt sex in The Stand that I really liked.

    Sure, that didn't come til the end, but when it did...

    sometimes you just gotta do a thing
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Honestly, I think there are more books by King with buttsex in it than there are without.

    optimusighsig.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
  • projectmayhemprojectmayhem Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
  • OrganichuOrganichu Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    I think Rand's work is fantastic, and they are among my favorite novels.

    XMSODhjrer45.gif
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Organichu wrote: »
    I think Rand's work is fantastic, and they are among my favorite novels.
    I'm trying to figure out where to start unraveling the fucked up in that statement, and failing miserably.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • OrganichuOrganichu Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Organichu wrote: »
    I think Rand's work is fantastic, and they are among my favorite novels.
    I'm trying to figure out where to start unraveling the fucked up in that statement, and failing miserably.

    It's alright. It's a proverbial not-so-Gordian Knot for which I hold no shame.

    XMSODhjrer45.gif
  • JebusUDJebusUD Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Organichu wrote: »
    Organichu wrote: »
    I think Rand's work is fantastic, and they are among my favorite novels.
    I'm trying to figure out where to start unraveling the fucked up in that statement, and failing miserably.

    It's alright. It's a proverbial not-so-Gordian Knot for which I hold no shame.

    Lets try and not turn this thread into a Rand Bashers against Rand lovers thread.

    You haven't given me a reason to steer clear of you!
  • RentRent I'm always right Fuckin' deal with itRegistered User regular
    edited October 2008
    What about Rand-Know-Nothingers? Seriously, I tried to read the Fountainhead and thought it was like the driest, more boring, and most nonsensical shit I had ever read. Never finished the first chapter.
    I kind of feeling bad for never reading it, but I'd really like to know why it sucks/rocks.
    I seem to remember a stupid ugly self-obsessed friend of mine loving it. And my dad. Both of whom I deeply mistrust.

  • Crimson KingCrimson King we need no grave to bury honesty there's not a grain of it the face to sweeten of the whole dungy earthRegistered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Rent wrote: »
    What about Rand-Know-Nothingers? Seriously, I tried to read the Fountainhead and thought it was like the driest, more boring, and most nonsensical shit I had ever read. Never finished the first chapter.
    I kind of feeling bad for never reading it, but I'd really like to know why it sucks/rocks.
    I seem to remember a stupid ugly self-obsessed friend of mine loving it. And my dad. Both of whom I deeply mistrust.

    I never red Atlas Shrugged, but I did read a cyberpunk book called Sewer, Gas and Electric which contained a tiny holographic robot Ayn Rand for the sole purpose of pointing out the obvious flaws in her philosophy. Plus it's pretty decent on its own.

    DS: 4742 - 6001 - 2106 add me to your friend safaris
  • OrganichuOrganichu Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    I'm not going to argue for Ayn Rand on this forum for the same reason I don't try to skip through the Quneitra crossing into Syria: I like my balls, my tits, and my rectum; I don't need any of them deep fried for wading into a mob.

    If you're talking strictly fiction, and you're willing to read through one of her two giants, I recommend The Fountainhead. If not, I recommend We The Living.

    XMSODhjrer45.gif
  • nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    I will make an admission: The Fountainhead was an okay novel. I am glad I read it, even if I didn't enjoy the process entirely.

    The philosophy espoused by said okay novel, though? Not so okay.

    Carl Sagan wrote:
    The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars.
  • RentRent I'm always right Fuckin' deal with itRegistered User regular
    edited October 2008
    What is Ayn (what's up with people putting unneccesary y's in their names? seriously) Rand's philosophy? From what little I do know about her novels I know that permeates throughout her novels.

  • OrganichuOrganichu Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Rent wrote: »
    What is Ayn (what's up with people putting unneccesary y's in their names? seriously) Rand's philosophy? From what little I do know about her novels I know that permeates throughout her novels.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)

    It has several painful shortcomings, but she essentially defined it as the following: recognizing that there is an objective reality and that it can be observed and studied, employing reason as man's only guide to knowing that reality, rational self-interest as the bedrock of ethics, capitalism as the socioeconomic paradigm that most perfectly represents the first three fields, and aesthetics/art as meta value judgments... reducing down to 'art is a recreation of reality according to the values that man ascribes to metaphysical existents.

    So baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaasially, Ayn Rand would say: a.) reality is real, b.) think, because that's good, c.) altruism sucks cunt, d.) fuck communism, and e.) art is a selective encapsulation of how we value the things we observe.

    (guys I'm just the messenger, be cool guys be cool)

    XMSODhjrer45.gif
  • flamebroiledchickenflamebroiledchicken Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Organichu wrote: »
    c.) altruism sucks cunt

    And this is the point that bothers most people. For christ's sake, she wrote a book called The Virtue of Selfishness.

    y59kydgzuja4.png
  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    It seems reading Ayn Rand makes you a dick, whether you like her or not. Except for a few people.

    So thankfully I've avoided that.

    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Organichu wrote: »
    c.) altruism sucks cunt

    And this is the point that bothers most people. For christ's sake, she wrote a book called The Virtue of Selfishness.

    It also ignores how beneficial altruism can be to the individual.

  • OrganichuOrganichu Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Organichu wrote: »
    c.) altruism sucks cunt

    And this is the point that bothers most people. For christ's sake, she wrote a book called The Virtue of Selfishness.

    It could be worse. She could have written a book called-

    No. No, I'm not going to Godwin this thread, as ironic as it would be considered the thread topic. :lol:

    XMSODhjrer45.gif
  • OrganichuOrganichu Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Couscous wrote: »
    Organichu wrote: »
    c.) altruism sucks cunt

    And this is the point that bothers most people. For christ's sake, she wrote a book called The Virtue of Selfishness.

    It also ignores how beneficial altruism can be to the individual.

    Well now if one realized the activity would eventually benefit them maximally in the end it wouldn't be altruistic would it? ;-)

    XMSODhjrer45.gif
  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Altruism isn't Absolutist.

    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • RentRent I'm always right Fuckin' deal with itRegistered User regular
    edited October 2008
    After reading the article I'm more worried about her complete and utter support for laissez-faire capitalism, which is such a dangerously stupid idea that it's hard to express in words.

  • OrganichuOrganichu Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    I really need to read Catcher in the Rye because I feel without it I've missed a very large chain of cultural allusions throughout my life.

    XMSODhjrer45.gif
  • Crimson KingCrimson King we need no grave to bury honesty there's not a grain of it the face to sweeten of the whole dungy earthRegistered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Rent wrote: »
    After reading the article I'm more worried about her complete and utter support for laissez-faire capitalism, which is such a dangerously stupid idea that it's hard to express in words.

    Well it might work just fine if people were super-intelligent robots.

    DS: 4742 - 6001 - 2106 add me to your friend safaris
  • OrganichuOrganichu Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Rent that is certainly a controversial stance, yes.

    XMSODhjrer45.gif
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Organichu wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Organichu wrote: »
    c.) altruism sucks cunt

    And this is the point that bothers most people. For christ's sake, she wrote a book called The Virtue of Selfishness.

    It also ignores how beneficial altruism can be to the individual.

    Well now if one realized the activity would eventually benefit them maximally in the end it wouldn't be altruistic would it? ;-)

    You could use that to say altruism doesn't actually exist because most individuals considered altruistic do get emotional benefit out of it. Just because there is a reward for it doesn't mean the individual actually expected a reward. If I saved someone's life without expecting anything in return and ended up getting a material benefit from it, that doesn't mean saving someone's life wasn't altruistic.
    Altruism is an ethical doctrine that holds that individuals have a moral obligation to help, serve, or benefit others, if necessary at the sacrifice of self interest. Auguste Comte's version of altruism calls for living for the sake of others. One who holds to either of these ethics is known as an "altruist."
    Various philosophers define the doctrine in various ways, but all definitions generally revolve around a moral obligation to benefit others or the pronouncement of moral value in serving others rather than oneself. Philosopher C. D. Broad defines altruism as "the doctrine that each of us has a special obligation to benefit others." [4] Philosopher W. G. Maclagan defines it as "a duty to relieve the distress and promote the happiness of our fellows...Altruism is to...maintain quite simply that a man may and should discount altogether his own pleasure or happiness as such when he is deciding what course of action to pursue."
    If serving others benefits a person, that doesn't mean the person didn't act altruistically even if he knew that he might get a material reward in return.

    Besides, almost nobody actually thinks about maximizing their rewards except in an extremely general way when deciding what to do on most issues.

  • OrganichuOrganichu Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Couscous wrote: »
    Organichu wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Organichu wrote: »
    c.) altruism sucks cunt

    And this is the point that bothers most people. For christ's sake, she wrote a book called The Virtue of Selfishness.

    It also ignores how beneficial altruism can be to the individual.

    Well now if one realized the activity would eventually benefit them maximally in the end it wouldn't be altruistic would it? ;-)

    You could use that to say altruism doesn't actually exist because most individuals considered altruistic do get emotional benefit out of it. Just because there is a reward for it doesn't mean the individual actually expected a reward. If I saved someone's life without expecting anything in return and ended up getting a material benefit from it, that doesn't mean saving someone's life wasn't altruistic.
    Altruism is an ethical doctrine that holds that individuals have a moral obligation to help, serve, or benefit others, if necessary at the sacrifice of self interest. Auguste Comte's version of altruism calls for living for the sake of others. One who holds to either of these ethics is known as an "altruist."
    Various philosophers define the doctrine in various ways, but all definitions generally revolve around a moral obligation to benefit others or the pronouncement of moral value in serving others rather than oneself. Philosopher C. D. Broad defines altruism as "the doctrine that each of us has a special obligation to benefit others." [4] Philosopher W. G. Maclagan defines it as "a duty to relieve the distress and promote the happiness of our fellows...Altruism is to...maintain quite simply that a man may and should discount altogether his own pleasure or happiness as such when he is deciding what course of action to pursue."
    If serving others benefits a person, that doesn't mean the person didn't act altruistically even if he knew that he might get a material reward in return.

    Besides, almost nobody actually thinks about maximizing their rewards except in an extremely general way when deciding what to do on most issues.

    I'm not sure why you're only considering 'material' rewards as vindication? Unless I misunderstand your usage of the word. For example Rand would hold that dying for a person whom you hold particularly dear isn't altruistic and she isn't referring to a potential cash reward.

    I would agree with your postulation that altruism might not really even exist. Isn't just about every action done out of self-interest? If you dive in front of a car to save another, then clearly that value is pretty high up there and your receipt for that action is intellectual validation.

    Eh, a thread should probably be made about this where more qualified people than myself can discuss it. I'm not going to posture as philosophically studied.

    XMSODhjrer45.gif
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    I'm not sure why you're only considering 'material' rewards as vindication? Unless I misunderstand your usage of the word. For example Rand would hold that dying for a person whom you hold particularly dear isn't altruistic and she isn't referring to a potential cash reward.
    Because unless you limit it to mostly material rewards, the whole thing becomes meaningless and can be used to justify anything. Spritual rewards and martyrdom for examples are something I doubt Rand ever intended rewards to cover.
    I would agree with your postulation that altruism might not really even exist. Isn't just about every action done out of self-interest? If you dive in front of a car to save another, then clearly that value is pretty high up there and your receipt for that action is intellectual validation.
    Again, that is only if you stretch the word so far that it becomes nearly meaningless.
    1. One's personal interest or advantage, especially when pursued without regard for others.
    # S: (n) opportunism, self-interest, self-seeking, expedience (taking advantage of opportunities without regard for the consequences for others)
    # S: (n) egoism, egocentrism, self-interest, self-concern, self-centeredness (concern for your own interests and welfare)

  • OrganichuOrganichu Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Couscous wrote: »
    I'm not sure why you're only considering 'material' rewards as vindication? Unless I misunderstand your usage of the word. For example Rand would hold that dying for a person whom you hold particularly dear isn't altruistic and she isn't referring to a potential cash reward.
    Because unless you limit it to mostly material rewards, the whole thing becomes meaningless and can be used to justify anything. Spritual rewards and martyrdom for examples are something I doubt Rand ever intended rewards to cover.
    I would agree with your postulation that altruism might not really even exist. Isn't just about every action done out of self-interest? If you dive in front of a car to save another, then clearly that value is pretty high up there and your receipt for that action is intellectual validation.
    Again, that is only if you stretch the word so far that it becomes nearly meaningless.
    1. One's personal interest or advantage, especially when pursued without regard for others.
    # S: (n) opportunism, self-interest, self-seeking, expedience (taking advantage of opportunities without regard for the consequences for others)
    # S: (n) egoism, egocentrism, self-interest, self-concern, self-centeredness (concern for your own interests and welfare)

    Right, but I'm not sure why that's a problem. I mean, what is the problem with extrapolating upon meaning if it invalidates a concept? It very well may be that the alleged concept (Rand's deinition of 'altruism') is impossible. Don't mistake me as agreeing with her on all these issues. It might seem 'meaningless', but I think it's because Rand's concept of altruism- a behavior or attitude undertaken without regard for self- is intellectually oxymoronic. It's contradictory, as far as I can tell.

    Since this makes Rand look dumb maybe you should agree with me. ;-)

    XMSODhjrer45.gif
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    If taking a philosophy to its logical conclusion basically results in a philosophy that says "continue doing everything you are already do," that philosophy is pretty goddamn useless and has no application.

    People use self-interest to mean looking out for the self without regard to others. Ayn Rand used the word reward not to mean the psychological benefits from martyrdom and giving all of your money and property to the Church. Rand obviously believed altruism existed. If it didn't, she wouldn't be able to say it is self-destructive and immoral. If you do take it to mean those things, you end up with a useless philosophy.

    Almost nobody considers doing shit that benefits you in a vague way with a ton of material disadvantages as being part of self-interest.

    Basically, you end up with psychological egoism with a shitty aftertaste of bullshit.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_egoism

  • RentRent I'm always right Fuckin' deal with itRegistered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Organichu wrote: »
    Rent that is certainly a controversial stance, yes.
    Here's the problem with laissez-faire capitalism and it's polar opposite, communism. Both assume ridiculous facts about society and how it works. Communism assumes everyone'll act in everyone else's best interest, which is just fucking retarded since people sin, and laissez-faire capitalism assumes everyone'll act to maximize profit which is disproven because people are morons.

  • OrganichuOrganichu Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Couscous wrote: »
    If taking a philosophy to its logical conclusion basically results in a philosophy that says "continue doing everything you are already do," that philosophy is pretty goddamn useless and has no application.

    People use self-interest to mean looking out for the self without regard to others. Ayn Rand used the word reward not to mean the psychological benefits from martyrdom and giving all of your money and property to the Church. Rand obviously believed altruism existed. If it didn't, she wouldn't be able to say it is self-destructive and immoral. If you do take it to mean those things, you end up with a useless philosophy.

    Almost nobody considers doing shit that benefits you in a vague way with a ton of material disadvantages as being part of self-interest.

    Right, like I said I wasn't defending Ayn Rand's philosophy, I specifically told you that I disagreed with it. Don't take me not calling her an empty headed loon as me being a Randroid.

    I know that were I to die for my wife I'd consider that acting very much in my self-interest- it'd be a vindication of my very strongest values in my life and my commitment to protect them. I'm not trying to make a philosophical 'point' about this, it seems to me to be more a point of semantics. It could also be impacted by me having ESL.

    XMSODhjrer45.gif
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    I know that were I to die for my wife I'd consider that acting very much in my self-interest- it'd be a vindication of my very strongest values in my life and my commitment to protect them.
    You wouldn't have time for vindication. You would just be dead. A person who takes a bullet in order to save a person won't be able to get any vindication.

  • OrganichuOrganichu Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Couscous wrote: »
    I know that were I to die for my wife I'd consider that acting very much in my self-interest- it'd be a vindication of my very strongest values in my life and my commitment to protect them.
    You wouldn't have time for vindication. You would just be dead. A person who takes a bullet in order to save a person won't be able to get any vindication.

    But I'm saying that if I did not highly value my wife- if she didn't mean that much to me, if she weren't such an intense embodiment of my values- I wouldn't react to jump in front of her. I mean, unless you're attempting to make the argument that societal constructs (the idea that a man protects his wife, and that's that) would guide me, and it wouldn't have anything to do with my 'values'.

    Perhaps a better analogue would be one of those silly and ridiculous action movies where a guy takes on an entire crime family to get back his wife or whatever.

    XMSODhjrer45.gif
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    But I'm saying that if I did not highly value my wife- if she didn't mean that much to me, if she weren't such an intense embodiment of my values- I wouldn't react to jump in front of her. I mean, unless you're attempting to make the argument that societal constructs (the idea that a man protects his wife, and that's that) would guide me, and it wouldn't have anything to do with my 'values'.

    Perhaps a better analogue would be one of those silly and ridiculous action movies where a guy takes on an entire crime family to get back his wife or whatever.
    In that case you would be living for another person instead of yourself, at which point it would be altruism by most accepted definitions of the word.

  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    I like books. Let's talk about books rather than philosophies.

    Let's avoid making this into an objectivism, atheism, abortion or libertarianism thread, yeah?

    Please?

    Pretty please?

    I've read most of the books on the banned lists that end up being circulated.

    Is there any book that should be banned? I mean, if we let Mein Kampf get read, not much else ought to be banned, surely?

    I figure I could take a bear.
  • OrganichuOrganichu Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Couscous wrote: »
    But I'm saying that if I did not highly value my wife- if she didn't mean that much to me, if she weren't such an intense embodiment of my values- I wouldn't react to jump in front of her. I mean, unless you're attempting to make the argument that societal constructs (the idea that a man protects his wife, and that's that) would guide me, and it wouldn't have anything to do with my 'values'.

    Perhaps a better analogue would be one of those silly and ridiculous action movies where a guy takes on an entire crime family to get back his wife or whatever.
    In that case you would be living for another person instead of yourself, at which point it would be altruism by most accepted definitions of the word.

    What? No, I think there's a profound difference between what I describe and living 'for' someone. And even if you did live 'for' them, that would ultimately be the thing that granted you the most lasting and powerful satisfaction (with all the knowledge you currently possess) and so it'd be in your self-interest. This stuff is quite convoluted.

    addendum: Oh I see the poster above me requests a redirection to the thread topic. Fair enough. It was nice discussing things with you, wise Couscous. I shall weigh your words, spherical wheat person.






    I don't think any books should be banned. Though... hm. I guess I could maybe see a world in which that might be feasible. Like, what if enriched uranium were readily available, like gravel. Maybe then a 'KISS guide to nuclear weaponry' ought to garner a ban.

    XMSODhjrer45.gif
  • ThetherooThetheroo Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Kagera wrote: »
    It seems reading Ayn Rand makes you a dick, whether you like her or not. Except for a few people.

    So thankfully I've avoided that.

    Objectivism really isn't that bad if you look at it broadly, up close is where it gets sorta nasty and weird. It does sorta get bashed on this forum, for both fair and unfair reasons.

    I used to be a giant Randian philosophy whore.

Sign In or Register to comment.