WatchmenComicMovie.com Forum


Talk about the Watchmen comic book mini-series and film
It is currently Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:52 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 3:25 am 
Offline
Crimebuster
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 8:43 pm
Posts: 48
Wikipedia,ironically founded by an Objectivist, defines Objectivism thusly

"The name "Objectivism" derives from the principle that human knowledge and values are objective: they are not created by the thoughts one has, but are determined by the nature of reality, to be discovered by man's mind"

Now,correct me if I'm wrong,but didn't Rorschach have an extensive speech on how there are no moral rules save those we wish to impose? I've also heard Ayn Rand wasn't very fond of Harry Truman,unlike Rory. So,I'm asking what is so Objectivist about him?

_________________
"Of course. Must protect Veidt's new utopia. One more body amongst foundations makes little difference. Well? What are you waiting for? Do it."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 3:17 pm 
Offline
Alien Squid Monster
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 3:13 pm
Posts: 102
Location: On the Argyre Planitia
Personally, I think the particular speech you're referring to is about how Rorschach feels about the world he is trying to save. How everyone makes up their own values based on what they perceive and choose to impose from it. He believes this is the root of all evil: people following their own vague principles and ignoring what to Rorschach appears to be black and white.

So he is an objectivist; there are ethical principles that are written in stone that humanity should discover rather than create, and he believes he is imposing those principles on people who ignore them, Adrian Veidt in particular.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 4:37 pm 
Offline
Crimebuster
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 8:43 pm
Posts: 48
That explains alot. Thank you.

_________________
"Of course. Must protect Veidt's new utopia. One more body amongst foundations makes little difference. Well? What are you waiting for? Do it."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 7:01 pm 
Offline
...you're locked in here with me!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 7:53 pm
Posts: 10199
[NOTE: Merged. --"Curiosity Inc."]

http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/index.ph ... =8850&st=0

I was looking for Moore's comments on Ayn Rand's objectivism and I found this link, also as of now, I am reading "Atlas Shrugged" as a way to get to know Rand's objectivism, so far I've liked it, but I am really having trouble trying to understand these people and their constant use of the world "malevolence" :lol: , so as a "study" on Rand's philosophy, I was curious if anyone could explain to me what the fuck these people are talking about, because they seem to use a criteria that I am very unfamiliar with, perhaps one cannot understand Ms. Randschach without reading all of her work.

But since I really love this forum, I wanted to ask your opinions.

Also, I still can't believe that someone actually said that Watchmen didn't hold a candle to 300 :shock:

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 1:48 pm 
Offline
Labored long to build a heaven.
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:48 pm
Posts: 12480
Location: Monster Island (Really New York)
Malevolent universe?

Redundant much? I get what they're saying, though.

_________________
"The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part.
Image
"There's a cello in your house now."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 5:26 pm 
Offline
...you're locked in here with me!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 7:53 pm
Posts: 10199
Godziller66 wrote:
Malevolent universe?

Redundant much? I get what they're saying, though.


Dude, somebody said that Watchmen didn't hold a candle to 300 :shock: , why are you not having an epileptic attack :lol: ?

And do you really get the "Malevolent" part ? it seems to me like some sort of a "Randian" term, an objectivist term, yet I don't know what they may be implying, and I find it very curious that almost everyone is using the damn word.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 5:50 pm 
Offline
Labored long to build a heaven.
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:48 pm
Posts: 12480
Location: Monster Island (Really New York)
feliciano182 wrote:
Godziller66 wrote:
Malevolent universe?

Redundant much? I get what they're saying, though.


Dude, somebody said that Watchmen didn't hold a candle to 300 :shock: , why are you not having an epileptic attack :lol: ?

And do you really get the "Malevolent" part ? it seems to me like some sort of a "Randian" term, an objectivist term, yet I don't know what they may be implying, and I find it very curious that almost everyone is using the damn word.

Well, there are so many things wrong with some of the things that those posters said that I really don't feel like taking the time to explain what we all already know.

But when they say malevolent, and they may be using it incorrectly, they mean a pessimistic look at the world. Watchmen is very dark and cynical.

_________________
"The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part.
Image
"There's a cello in your house now."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:11 pm 
Offline
...you're locked in here with me!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 7:53 pm
Posts: 10199
Godziller66 wrote:
But when they say malevolent, and they may be using it incorrectly, they mean a pessimistic look at the world. Watchmen is very dark and cynical.


You are quite different from me, I was looking for a fight with that link :lol: !

But if they believe that one of Watchmen's "bad qualities" is that they show a dark and cynical world, then they really are a lousy audience, for starters !

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:39 pm 
Offline
Labored long to build a heaven.
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:48 pm
Posts: 12480
Location: Monster Island (Really New York)
feliciano182 wrote:
But if they believe that one of Watchmen's "bad qualities" is that they show a dark and cynical world, then they really are a lousy audience, for starters !

Yeah, you're right. :lol:

_________________
"The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part.
Image
"There's a cello in your house now."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 12:12 pm 
Offline
The Watcher
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2007 8:58 am
Posts: 3650
Location: New York
Malevolent Universe Premise:

The view that the world is inhospitable and that life consists of a constant struggle for survival.

The Malevolent Universe Premise is belief that the world is really incompatible with human existence. If people are able to survive, it's only through constant struggle, the help of others, and a little luck. Happiness is viewed as unattainable, at least for very long. It's the view that when good things do happen to you, it's really just to set you up for an even bigger loss. It may include an mystical belief that someone or something is actually out to get you.

The Malevolent Universe Premise starts off as an evaluation of what life is like. But like all philosophical premises, it can lead to new effects. When you don't have an expectation of success in life, you're far less likely to take the steps needed to achieve that success. If you think life is basically impossible without help, you might start to think of others as more important to your survival than yourself.

Objectivism rejects the Malevolent Universe Premise. While everyone has occasional problems, we believe that we are well adapted to live in the world. With the power of our intellects, we're able to manipulate our environments to better suit us. Happiness and success are not only within our means, but they're likely outcomes of a well lived life. Objectivism instead promotes a Benevolent Universe Premise.

_________________
Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music - George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 11:23 pm 
Offline
...you're locked in here with me!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 7:53 pm
Posts: 10199
^ WOW, you're an objectivist :o ?

Didn't see that one coming :lol:

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 11:34 pm 
Offline
Labored long to build a heaven.
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:48 pm
Posts: 12480
Location: Monster Island (Really New York)
DoomsdayClock wrote:
Objectivism rejects the Malevolent Universe Premise. While everyone has occasional problems, we believe that we are well adapted to live in the world. With the power of our intellects, we're able to manipulate our environments to better suit us. Happiness and success are not only within our means, but they're likely outcomes of a well lived life. Objectivism instead promotes a Benevolent Universe Premise.

Wait...Then Rorschach isn't an objectivist?

_________________
"The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part.
Image
"There's a cello in your house now."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:15 am 
Offline
Tired of Earth.
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 11:01 am
Posts: 8035
Location: Clackamas, OR
I think an important factor is Alan Moore's grasp of Objectivism. He only seems to address the "absolute good vs. absolute evil" facet of Objectivism, and even that side of it is more nuanced than Rorschach would suggest.

Mind you, the only things I know about Objectivism are what I picked up while reading Atlas Shrugged. But regarding morality, Ayn Rand seemed really big on the second formulation of Kant's Categorical Imperative. In other words, she believed that people should be treated as ends in themselves and never as means to an end. Any action that breaks this imperative is evil. Any action that follows it is commendable. No exceptions.

Now, does anyone here really believe that Rorschach gives a damn about the Categorical Imperative? The guy who threatened and inured an old man to gain information?

No, Rorschach only works as a demonstration of why binary thinking doesn't work. If he was ever meant to represent why Objectivism doesn't work, then I can only assume that Alan Moore didn't have a solid grasp on the philosophy.

_________________
This is truly a madhouse. And I'm the lunatic running it. I've spent three years wondering if I should be proud or ashamed.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 20, 2010 9:13 am 
Offline
The Watcher
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2007 8:58 am
Posts: 3650
Location: New York
Godziller66 wrote:
DoomsdayClock wrote:
Objectivism rejects the Malevolent Universe Premise. While everyone has occasional problems, we believe that we are well adapted to live in the world. With the power of our intellects, we're able to manipulate our environments to better suit us. Happiness and success are not only within our means, but they're likely outcomes of a well lived life. Objectivism instead promotes a Benevolent Universe Premise.

Wait...Then Rorschach isn't an objectivist?

The above statement does fit Rorschach. Why would he take up the task of fighting evil and defending the moral good if he didn't think it would make a difference?

_________________
Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music - George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:02 pm 
Offline
Labored long to build a heaven.
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:48 pm
Posts: 12480
Location: Monster Island (Really New York)
DoomsdayClock wrote:
Godziller66 wrote:
DoomsdayClock wrote:
Objectivism rejects the Malevolent Universe Premise. While everyone has occasional problems, we believe that we are well adapted to live in the world. With the power of our intellects, we're able to manipulate our environments to better suit us. Happiness and success are not only within our means, but they're likely outcomes of a well lived life. Objectivism instead promotes a Benevolent Universe Premise.

Wait...Then Rorschach isn't an objectivist?

The above statement does fit Rorschach. Why would he take up the task of fighting evil and defending the moral good if he didn't think it would make a difference?

He clearly doesn't think the world is a good place, though.

_________________
"The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part.
Image
"There's a cello in your house now."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 20, 2010 6:25 pm 
Offline
The Watcher
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2007 8:58 am
Posts: 3650
Location: New York
Godziller66 wrote:
DoomsdayClock wrote:
Godziller66 wrote:
DoomsdayClock wrote:
Objectivism rejects the Malevolent Universe Premise. While everyone has occasional problems, we believe that we are well adapted to live in the world. With the power of our intellects, we're able to manipulate our environments to better suit us. Happiness and success are not only within our means, but they're likely outcomes of a well lived life. Objectivism instead promotes a Benevolent Universe Premise.

Wait...Then Rorschach isn't an objectivist?

The above statement does fit Rorschach. Why would he take up the task of fighting evil and defending the moral good if he didn't think it would make a difference?

He clearly doesn't think the world is a good place, though.

Keep in mind Benevolent Universe does not mean one of rainbows and unicorns. It's a view of the world that suggest that success and happiness are not only achievable, but are likely if you lead a good life. It is the view that the world has a nature and can be understood. We're able to grasp its nature, and act purposefully to improve our lives. It's an evaluation of the world that says that it is conducive to human life.

There's sometimes a little confusion about the choice of words. The term "benevolent" is usually used as a description of a person, so this could be accidentally taken to mean that the universe is conscious and friendly to our lives. That's not at all what was intended. It is meant to describe a kind of value-judgment about the world, and suggest that the world not only allows survival, but that success and happiness aren't that difficult to achieve.

_________________
Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music - George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 20, 2010 6:29 pm 
Offline
Labored long to build a heaven.
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:48 pm
Posts: 12480
Location: Monster Island (Really New York)
Kay, So that means that the majority of people are objectivists? Without taking a nationwide poll or anything, I'd think that most people subscribe to that theory.

_________________
"The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part.
Image
"There's a cello in your house now."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 20, 2010 7:38 pm 
Offline
Tired of Earth.
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 11:01 am
Posts: 8035
Location: Clackamas, OR
Godziller66 wrote:
Kay, So that means that the majority of people are objectivists? Without taking a nationwide poll or anything, I'd think that most people subscribe to that theory.

First of all, you'd be surprised. Secondly, Objectivism is a rather complex philosophy comprised of many more ideas than we've touched on here.

Thirdly, Ayn Rand was always very explicit that there was no grey area when it comes to believing in her philosophy. You can't just pick certain parts of it that you like and call yourself an Objectivist. If you believe all of it, then you're an Objectivist. If you don't, you're not. Rand was kind of a bitch that way.

_________________
This is truly a madhouse. And I'm the lunatic running it. I've spent three years wondering if I should be proud or ashamed.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 20, 2010 7:55 pm 
Offline
...you're locked in here with me!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 7:53 pm
Posts: 10199
Curiosity Inc. wrote:
Rand was kind of a bitch that way.


I have to say honestly, considering how far I've read Atlas Shrugged, that I do like some of her ideas about personal freedom and about the value of the individual, in regards to his choices and his actions.

But Francisco D'Anconia's line about how the measure of a man is only "his work" really freaked me out, did she ever realize the irony contained in that one line ? first of all, because of the ambigüity about what "work" is, and in terms of how work is good, is it good because it is materially impressive ? because it has a function ? does perception about value involve others ? if that is true, then wouldn't that be a contradiction ? shouldn't individual opinion be the only one that matters ? if my only "work" is a lego castle, then who's to really say that I am not a great man ? shouldn't I be my own judge ?

Second of all, because if we value people over their work, and not by other qualities, then wouldn't that make us morally worth as much as the the totalitarian governments that ruled communist Russia ? the ones who she very intensely despised ?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 20, 2010 8:05 pm 
Offline
Labored long to build a heaven.
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:48 pm
Posts: 12480
Location: Monster Island (Really New York)
Atlas Shrugged is actually sitting in my room. I bought it a couple of years ago with the intention of reading it but I got bored fast. Oh well. I guess I'll just play Bioshock.

_________________
"The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part.
Image
"There's a cello in your house now."


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.180s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]