InsaneJournal

Tweak says, "My god, I'm gorgeous!"

box_in_the_box (box_in_the_box) wrote in scans_daily,
@ 2009-08-28 14:38:00

Entry tags:

creator: steve ditko, theme: objectivism

"If only that Ditko fellow was less subtle and more overt regarding his personal politics ..."
For as much fail as it churns out, Big Hollywood occasionally offers some genuine gems.

I can't stand Objectivism, but I find Steve Ditko's treatment of it irresistibly compelling, perhaps because the comic book medium is a far more appropriate venue for such a Manichean philosophy than the thousand-page rape-justifying tomes that Ayn Rand routinely shat out (it certainly helps that none of Ditko's characters ever barfed up a 70-page screed like John Galt, not to mention the fact that Ditko actually managed to create characters who were more believable as human beings than any of Rand's strawmen or Mary Sues, even when his characters were radioactivity-powered superheroes).

The following four pages constitute "In Principle: The Unchecked Premise," a short story originally published in the 160-page graphic novel Steve Ditko's Static in 1988:

As crudely simplistic as it is, it's still better than either reading or watching the "fireplace scene" between Howard Roark and Dominique Francon in The Fountainhead, but then again, so is getting punched in the crotch until you hemorrhage internally and die.

(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

mcspakypants
2009-08-28 10:26 pm UTC (link)

The whole "charity is evil" concept is completely stupid, but you can never accuse Ditko of being a hypocrite as he refuses to take any kind of royalties from his work. That's probably why Sony was OK with putting Ditko's name in the credits of Spider-man since he wouldn't be making a cent from it.

BTW I think he's a fool for taking that stance but whatever, it's his life.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	box_in_the_box 2009-08-28 10:29 pm UTC (link)
	Oh, I'll absolutely agree, in that as much as I disagree with Ditko's philosophy, I genuinely admire his commitment to it. In a way, I enjoy Ditko's Objectivism for the same reason that I love Rorschach's - I think they're both wrong, but I can't help but love the PURITY of their beliefs all the same. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	mcspakypants 2009-08-28 10:34 pm UTC (link)
	Just curious, would you consider Michael Moore somewhat of a hypocrite if he keeps any of the profits of his Capitalism documentary coming out this October? Now I don't hate Moore, I think most of his documentaries had good points, Bowling with Columbine especially, but I'm curious as to what he'll do with the money he makes from this. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

box_in_the_box
2009-08-28 11:00 pm UTC (link)

What's funny is, I feel almost exactly the opposite about Moore than I do about Ditko - I disagree with Ditko 100-percent, but respect him as a person, whereas I agree with most of what Moore supports, but I consider him a terrible person regardless, not in the least because he uses shoddy research and deceptive presentation to support his claims, and even speaking as someone who thinks those claims are themselves probably accurate, that shit ain't cool.

I used to respect Moore, but I've long since come to regard him as the Rush Limbaugh of liberals.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(no subject) -

autolychus2, 2009-08-29 08:30 pm UTC

	jarodrussell 2009-08-28 11:26 pm UTC (link)
	The whole "charity is evil" concept is completely stupid... You do realized the entire premise of natural selection is based on "charity is evil" right? I'm not an Objectivist, but you have to admit the universal system that gave rise to human kind can't be complete bunk. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	runespoor7 2009-08-28 11:31 pm UTC (link)
	You can't compare nature and human society. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	jarodrussell 2009-08-28 11:34 pm UTC (link)
	Are humans not part of nature? (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(no subject) -

runespoor7, 2009-08-28 11:38 pm UTC

(no subject) -

jarodrussell, 2009-08-28 11:53 pm UTC

(no subject) -

runespoor7, 2009-08-29 12:03 am UTC

(no subject) -

jarodrussell, 2009-08-29 12:23 am UTC

(no subject) -

runespoor7, 2009-08-29 12:31 am UTC

(no subject) -

jarodrussell, 2009-08-29 12:36 am UTC

(no subject) -

runespoor7, 2009-08-29 12:42 am UTC

(no subject) -

jarodrussell, 2009-08-29 12:47 am UTC

(no subject) -

runespoor7, 2009-08-29 12:59 am UTC

	fredneil.livejournal.com 2009-08-28 11:34 pm UTC (link)
	"You do realized the entire premise of natural selection is based on "charity is evil" right?" Not really. Natural selection is based on the survival of the species, not of the individual. Often, charity helps toward that survival, which is why you see altruism in animals as well as in humans. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

jarodrussell
2009-08-28 11:44 pm UTC (link)

I thought survival of the fittest was based on the most capable of a species reproducing, to ensure future generations of that species would be stronger and more capable. Charity helps toward survival, I'm not arguing that, but there can be selfish motives to behind altruistic acts. I could donate a thousand dollars to a local food bank to further my political career; does that make my act less altruistic or less selfish?

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(no subject) -

greenmask, 2009-08-29 12:04 am UTC

(no subject) -

jarodrussell, 2009-08-29 12:25 am UTC

(no subject) -

greenmask, 2009-08-29 12:41 am UTC

(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2009-08-29 01:22 am UTC

(no subject) -

greenmask, 2009-08-29 10:23 am UTC

(no subject) -

fredneil.livejournal.com, 2009-08-29 01:32 am UTC

(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2009-09-01 05:04 pm UTC

Okay, let's get this out of the way. -

nefrekeptah, 2009-08-29 02:13 am UTC

Re: Okay, let's get this out of the way. - (Anonymous), 2009-08-29 02:24 am UTC

Re: Okay, let's get this out of the way. -

jarodrussell, 2009-08-29 02:50 am UTC

(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2009-08-29 04:05 pm UTC

	jlroberson 2009-08-29 08:35 am UTC (link)
	Natural selection is a principle of NATURE. Which is also red in tooth and claw. Anyone who believes we should therefore choose to live that way had better call for the abolition of the police, start running about naked without electricity, and live in homes made of their own dung. Human society has little to nothing to do with nature. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	mcspakypants 2009-08-28 11:37 pm UTC (link)
	Oh I realize that, but some charity is worth giving money to like children's cancer research and abused women's shelters. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	dimesfornickels.wordpress.com 2009-08-28 11:46 pm UTC (link)
	Go get "The Selfish Gene" (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	jarodrussell 2009-08-29 12:00 am UTC (link)
	reads Wikipedia summary Yup. (Reply to this) (Parent)

iesika
2009-08-29 12:03 am UTC (link)

I've got to take exception to this misreading of Darwin, on biological grounds. What sets the "higher animals," including humans, apart is intra-species cooperation. We expend considerable energy protecting and teaching our young, we share and exchange our resources, and we cooperate to survive, and to protect our own. Social behavior is what makes mammals, and particularly primates, successful. Adult wolves defend pups they aren't related to, and it makes the pack stronger. Apes (including us) share and trade food resources, and it makes troupes stronger. I've seen personally healthy rats feed and bathe sick ones, going so far as to carry the aging and infirm on their backs - and there are an awful lot of rats. Cooperation and altruism are part of group-formation, and over and over it is the social species that succeed.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	jarodrussell 2009-08-29 12:27 am UTC (link)
	But in those cases aren't cooperation and altruism the best tools for self-preservation? (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(no subject) -

jlbarnett, 2009-08-29 03:15 am UTC

(no subject) -

jarodrussell, 2009-08-29 03:17 am UTC

(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2009-09-01 05:30 pm UTC

(no subject) -

dreams_of_all, 2009-08-30 12:59 am UTC

(no subject) -

iesika, 2009-08-31 04:54 pm UTC

(no subject) -

box_in_the_box, 2009-08-31 04:58 pm UTC

What?

nefrekeptah
2009-08-29 12:25 am UTC (link)

No. No, it's not.

All humans, and most animals that are more intelligent than a clam, have two very basic instincts; the survival instinct, and the instinct to protect others. If we didn't have that instinct to preserve ourselves over everyone else, mankind wouldn't exist today. And if we didn't have that instinct to put others' safety above our own, mankind wouldn't exist today.

That is why evolution involves cultural adaptation as well as natural adaptation.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	Re: What? jarodrussell 2009-08-29 12:29 am UTC (link)
	...the survival instinct, and the instinct to protect others. But which "others" do we more often protect, random strangers or people close to us? (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)