Objectivist Bad Guys?
Posted by Zero 10 years, 4 months ago to Entertainment
I was kinda harsh on Hiraghm the other day with his THREE DAYS OF A CONDOR post, so figured I'd stick my neck out with one of my favorites.
Frank, the titular Thief, is just about as close to an Objectivist as I've found in movie bad guys.
(If only he stole from the state instead of the private sector. Of course Ragnar not only stole from the state but he gave the money back to those it was taken from. Big difference!)
Anyway, one cool thing about this show, it reminds you that the distance between Objectivism and the average man is less than you might think. Frank makes a plan for his life and pursues it with competence and integrity. That really resonates with the viewer.
If you haven't seen it, I'm pretty sure it's on Netflix.
So, does anyone remember this one? What did you think? Thumbs up? Down? Meh?
Frank, the titular Thief, is just about as close to an Objectivist as I've found in movie bad guys.
(If only he stole from the state instead of the private sector. Of course Ragnar not only stole from the state but he gave the money back to those it was taken from. Big difference!)
Anyway, one cool thing about this show, it reminds you that the distance between Objectivism and the average man is less than you might think. Frank makes a plan for his life and pursues it with competence and integrity. That really resonates with the viewer.
If you haven't seen it, I'm pretty sure it's on Netflix.
So, does anyone remember this one? What did you think? Thumbs up? Down? Meh?
SOURCE URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHf1vlo9avs
Most leftists are good people, but some are butt heads.
Most _____ are decent people, some are buttheads.
We're not immune from the basic rules of life.
Objectivists of all people understand you contract and associate with individuals, so I completely agree with your last statement.
"Perhaps you need to be more careful because the movement is rife with rationalists who haven't done any "inner work" to understand what is driving them"
wow this is a loaded statement. Care to cite some examples or evidence of this?
1.You are right in correcting me for calling Objectivism a movement.
2. I won't give you examples because that would be divulging personal information so rife is too extreme a word to use. I do have enough examples to believe that it is very common.
3. I've never done this before. It's fun. Thanks for your input.
BTW, you did bring up something for me when you said "people make mistakes". I want to discuss that with you but I have to think on it first. I'll respond later today.
"Even if Objectivism could be considered "a movement" there would have to be a lot move people involved."
did you not intend it to be a negative statement? I read it as such
let us have it! ;)
Of course we all make little mistakes that have little or no consequences like forgetting to turn the stove down (I guess that could have a pretty big consequence!). The kind of "mistake" in the context of the discussion is where one has made a breach principle in terms of our beliefs as Objectivists. Are those really mistakes? In other words, is it legitimate to say it's just a mistake if one has evaded and thereby allowed himself to do something unethical or dishonest? If I introspect about my own instances of dishonesty it was always because I allowed myself to evade so I can't minimize it by calling it a mistake.
If you are talking about this post-zero and I disagree on objectivists as a bad guy. Objectivism is about romantic heroes as AR formulated her philosophy in writing her fiction. It is not in the romantic tradition for me to go looking for the bad boy. Objectivists are portrayed wrongly as bad guys too much already in books and film. I like to focus on what one should strive for in life.
I just thought I was being clever - and following up the "Three Days of the Condor" post with some better "bad guys."
But I take the point. Perhaps some "good guys" are due some recognition.
Of course we all have a learning curve and mine has been a lot longer than I would have liked. That's why I was making the point that my own worst behavior has been when I have violated my principles as an Objectivist. If I had learned earlier that I will always pay a high price for that behavior it would have been a lot better for me.
merry christmas, lestroy
And happy New Year.
And I thoroughly enjoyed the movie.
I really should have come up with a better title for the post.
More accurately- maybe something like - Rational Bad Guys an Objectivist might like.
Well, something like that.
But, no, an unrepentant thief would seem to be precluded from the club.
But I'll throw one out there for you-
"Catch Me If You Can." This real life story depicted in a Hollywood movie has a somewhat desirable ending. The kid ends up using his superior skills morally. Now whether he actually understood the moral difference , we don't know-after all, he was tired of running and didn't want to spend the rest of his life in jail.
I look for excellence not perfection. I notice when they come close and I'll give them a nod.
But I hear you. Glossing over the thievery is like saying Jeffery Dahmer was "this close" to being an Objectivist except he ate the bodies of his murdered victims.
(I'm not really saying that about Dahmer - I know nothing about him except I'm glad he's dead.)
But Frank really wasn't that far away. He was non-violent until given cause. His back story showed a huge chunk of his life was taken from him unjustly. The high-end thievin' was just his way of catching up and taking back.
Again, I'm not saying he got that right. I never called him an Objectivist. More of a kindred spirit. A Gayle Wynand. So close, but...
(Make no mistake, Gayle was a "bad guy".)
that someone able to make all of these distinctions and miss the most obvious moral questions seems to me to be more immoral than the clueless moocher who was raised to eat out of another's hand
But Wynand? Really? That monster ruthlessly destroyed peoples live without a second thought.
That he eventually blew his brains out only shows the true depth of his sin.
Frank did nothing anywhere near as evil. And he was an independent - never Mafioso.
Leaving aside all the other victims of his unjust witch hunts perpetrated for profit and power, what of his damage to Roark's career? A lesser man would not have survived such a brutal attack.
Yet Gayle was "close enough" that the perfect man could be friends with him - long before he ever repented his sins!
.
In comparison, your judgement of Frank seems particularly harsh.
a little off topic, but, do you enjoy Tarrentino movies like Pulp Fiction?
Perhaps we need to make a distinction:
"Objectivist" - one of the followers of Rand's "Objectivist" philosophy..
and "objectivist"... someone who behaves in an objective manner.
Speaking of James Caan, his character in "Rollerball" has Objectivist elements. The entire movie, known mostly for what was shocking violence in the early 1970s, is a decently crafted story about the individual versus the collective. And what happens when an individual decides that he will literally put his life on the line to live on his own terms rather than those of the collective.
I've often wondered what happened to Jonathan E. after the end of the movie.
Few of us get it all right all the time. Writers and story tellers too.
When you look for excellence you find it all around you.
When you seek perfection you are usually disappointed.
I liked Rollerball too, And I'm with you about James Caan in general. I don't know what his personal philosophy is but he always seems like half-way one of us.
As for Jon E at the end - yeah, probably not good. For every successful revolution there are thousands simply shot where they stand.
Not that you've said it - or even implied - but just to have it said - It is OK to like gritty action movies. It doesn't make you a lesser being.