InsaneJournal

Tweak says, "SHIA SURPRISE!"

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)

	skjam 2009-08-29 01:11 am UTC (link)
	Likewise, perfectly okay, as you are benefitting by gaining pleasure. Where your Objectivist gets antsy is the idea that you somehow have a responsibility to save the world for free, or inadequate compensation, just because you happen to have the capability to do so. And absolutely livid if someone legislates that they have an obligation to do so. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	xandertarbert 2009-08-29 01:14 am UTC (link)
	Well, then I am perfectly happy with that point of view then. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	skjam 2009-08-29 11:42 am UTC (link)
	Ayup. Unfortunately, Objectivism (like many philosophies) is really subject to abuse, because it's so easy to justify being an asshole to other people as opposed to using it to justify being a decent human being, which in theory it should do. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	xandertarbert 2009-08-29 12:35 pm UTC (link)
	Anything taken to extreme and all that. Makes you wonder why some people even try. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	fredneil.livejournal.com 2009-08-29 01:22 am UTC (link)
	So with great power comes great opportunities to give one's self pleasure? (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	xandertarbert 2009-08-29 01:38 am UTC (link)
	It helps ease his guilt over Uncle Ben dying. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	fredneil.livejournal.com 2009-08-29 01:44 am UTC (link)
	That's an ancillary benefit. The fact that he didn't recognize the responsibility before Uncle Ben died didn't mean it wasn't there. In fact, if he had recognized the responsibility, Uncle Ben might not have died. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	xandertarbert 2009-08-29 01:53 am UTC (link)
	But he chose to pick up that responsibility, nobody forced him to do it. He did it of his own free will. I'm fine with that. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

fredneil.livejournal.com
2009-08-29 02:03 am UTC (link)

It's a responsibility, though, not an option. You can choose not to pick something up if it's an option, but if you choose not to pick up a responsibility, you're doing the wrong thing. Is all pressure to do the right thing bad? Was it wrong for Uncle Ben to tell him that with great power comes great responsibility, since that was also a type of pressure. Ditko and Rand would both seem to think so, since they spend a lot of time mocking people who say things like that.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	xandertarbert 2009-08-29 02:13 am UTC (link)
	Yes, a choice between right and wrong. In a world where the choice between right and wrong, or super hero and super villain, is taken by many different beings. And he's seen villains that society doesn't punish, but in fact rewards. Wilson Fisk and Norman Osborn, for example. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	fredneil.livejournal.com 2009-08-29 02:26 am UTC (link)
	What are you saying "yes" to? I don't understand how what you just said answers what I asked you. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

xandertarbert
2009-08-29 02:40 am UTC (link)

Is all pressure to do the right thing bad?: It depends on the right thing. Even on some basic levels on right people wildly disagree. If the pressure was doing something he felt was morally wrong, then it is a bad thing.

Was it wrong for Uncle Ben to tell him that with great power comes great responsibility?: Since Peter took thins to be a personal motto, and not something he makes other people follow, I personally see this as a good thing. It could be taken either proactively of passively. Proactively is of course using it to help people, while passively is doing no harm to other people. Taken as a must help others, I would balk at it. Taken as don't hurt others, and I'm happy with it.

And I was saying yes to "You can choose not to pick something up if it's an option, but if you choose not to pick up a responsibility, you're doing the wrong thing." Only taking "wrong thing," as evil, as opposed to "incorrect choice."

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

kingrockwell
2009-08-29 03:24 am UTC (link)

But Peter's creed essentially was that he must help others! The very first story featured him trying to use his powers for his own self-interest, and ignoring the robber because it wasn't in his self-interest to stop him. That taken without the consequences of Ben's death would've been perfectly cool by Rand!

Everything that happened after that was Peter growing away from that ideal toward some more humanistic, even altruistic, saving people not because he wants to or because it makes him feel good, but because he feels he has an obligation due to his amazing powers. His life was regularly poorer for it, even, to the point he would try to dump it on occasion, only to be pulled back in when he'd see someone who needed help, not because he wanted to help or helping them didn't ruin his life regularly, but again, compulsion.

Spider-Man is a shockingly anti-Objectivist character at his heart to have been co-created by Ditko. It's a funny sort of thing.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(Read comments) -