"So, let's stop using that particular word when attempting to widen the net. "
I assume you mean of my own free will...lol
The problem with your theory (or John's?) is that you will eventually have to deal with the concept.
Is that honest? Have "we" sneaked something underneath the rug-looking a little deceptive. I think challenging assumptions of selflessness as a good might be a way to begin the conversation. IT's provocative and therefore compelling. Ultimately, I do not think the discussion of "selfish" can wait. That's like saying the discussion of "reason" can wait.

Here it is plain and simple... John feels as though the use of the word "selfish", in the same breath as "virtue", causes confusion in the uninitiated.

If we're to effectively propagate Ayn Rand's ideas, we don't need to add more layers of complexity - we need to remove them. So, let's stop using that particular word when attempting to widen the net.

The ideas are strong when they finally reach the target. We don't need to lengthen the distance - we need to shorten it. The "selfish" discussion can wait.

excellent points! and as if "culturemagic" didn't sound creepy enough-the definition sent me into chilling.

Yes I admit that selfish has a negative connotation. I also believe that its polar opposite, altruistic, is a four-letter word.
My concern is that any compromise between the two will benefit the altruists (Those who proclaim "we're all in this together" and their "right" to distribute everyone's property as they see fit.)

I found the following definition on http://www.culturemagic.org/RationalAltr... "Rational altruism affirms the positive perspective that all of our needs may be met, and that happiness is best provided, when we share…"

How quickly is concern for one's fellow humans twisted to "You owe us"? Backing off of Selfish, in any degree, is a slippery slope.

"...which four letter word?? "

It's the connotation that matters, as you have pointed out. First impressions can make you, or break you...and the word 'selfish' slams the door on any real dialogue with the party that you are trying to convince.

I don't even type out 'four letter words', but I was referring to the negative perception it generates.

Come to think of it, I am having a hard time finding a real four letter word that I think matches the public reaction to "selfish"! I guess that my cussing vocabulary is waning....

Pretty simple, for me: "selfish" is a four letter word, and "rational self interest" isn't.

You attract more flies with honey than vinegar....

the assumption that selfish implies harm to others does not square with the definition of the word. It has been "highjacked" in a way. (I want to say "shanghaied" but you never know who's going to get all bent our of shape). To use the word selfish is to further demonstrate the assumption that man is inherently good. Societies and religion always want to imply the exact opposite. If always saying rational self interest, it sidesteps that important truth.
which four letter word??

okay good.

didn't think you were.

I wasn't referring to you judging. I meant the masses who judge quickly and then stop listening after they hear one word they don't like or misunderstand.

I admire his tenacity in making the movies. I am proud to support them.

I have "bad hair" everyday.... so the answer is 'no'.
People are quick to judge... he was trying to lighten the mood. lol If he starts toiting with the Kardashians I'll stop defending his efforts.

especially not the "bad hair day" part. lol it seemed incongruous on so many levels. have you ever blamed a day on bad hair?

rational self interest as opposed to selfishness has a consistent historical foundation with our Constitution. I think easier to "chew on" than the word selfish. Admit it-selfish has such a negative connotation in our society-all societies probably-that it's hard to get people to get to the next step of 'read the book' or 'watch the movie.'
Even Rand puts a qualifier with the word.
"Just as man cannot survive by any random means, but must discover and practice the principles which his survival requires, so man’s self-interest cannot be determined by blind desires or random whims, but must be discovered and achieved by the guidance of rational principles. This is why the Objectivist ethics is a morality of rational self-interest—or of rational selfishness."

Coming from someone who only read Atlas a year or so ago and then started looking into her other works I can admit that at first glance the title of "The Virtue of Selfishness" my initial ingrained and conditioned reaction to the word "selfishness" wasn't positive....but because I had learned to trust Ayn's ideas (from reading Atlas) I dug deeper. Somewhere along the way I either read or saw her in an interview (or perhaps both) where she explained The Virtue of Selfishness to mean a "rational self interest" and then it ALL made sense.
When one hears the word 'selfish' they automatically jump to thinking that someone is stealing something from someone else...that being selfish somehow involves another being that is having something taken away for someone elses personal, self absorbed purpose. That's what we are taught from very young ages, at school, at church, at home.. "don't be selfish"...so it's practically a dirty word and it's something you do not want to be perceived as being.
The masses do not, and probably never will, get past that idea...the word 'selfishness' conjures up feelings of guilt and once spoken in an attempt to put a positive light on it (especially to those who either have heard negative things about Ayn Rand to begin with, or those who just plain avoid the word 'selfish')...then you've lost them.
I completely understand you being put off by Mr. Aglialoro's comments, I didn't love them myself (didn't love the interviewer either), BUT I do think that he was making an attempt to gain the interest of those who are completely unfamiliar with Ayn Rand's philosophy in a way that wouldn't feed into the crap they may have already heard. "The Virtue of Selfishness" and "A rational self interest" is a bit hard to swallow for those who haven't been reading what you've been reading for many years. YOU have a perfect understanding of what that means when you hear it.... so many others do not. I'm not holding my breath for the others to catch on, but making an attempt to get them to listen will not hurt anything. WE already get it and I don't think that interview was for US.

I agree with you in that I did not detect any compromise in I and II.His nervous laugh and "defence" of selfishness as good because it helps society unsettles me because it contradicts everything I've tried to live up to in my adult life.I define selfish as love of self - a moral and ethical good. I was raised in the RC church and get the difficulty in breaking away from its teachings. Maybe he struggles with the same problem? I'm not sure what you mean be "re-branding". Please explain.

I do not believe the movie will be affected by this. I presume you've seen I and II. Did you feel they were in any way compromised ? I didn't. Mr. Aglialoro has gone to great expense and time to make these movies. So I do not presume apology in his explanation, rather re-branding. what do you think?

Yeah I watched the same interview and caught the same thing. Why the hell is he producing a movie which specifically enshrines selfishness and pride in one's own accomplishments if he is embarrassed by these virtues? How will this viewpoint affect ASIII and Galt's speech?